Hey Mike,

I don't know why I'm having such trouble with Disqus. Glad you were able to read it at least (thanks for taking the time to read it all!)

A few thoughts in response to your post. It is important to remember the role of free will here also. God does not control us like robots. We have choices and can decided how to act. There is evil that existed then and there is evil that exists now. That God allows for certain things to happen does not mean he is fine with what is happening. Again, love is the supreme ethic here. And in order to have true love there needs to be the freedom to choose, and where there is the freedom to choose, unfortunately it is the case that some will choose evil over good. A constant theme in Deuteronomy is 'choose life!'

Have you read the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says, "You have heard that it was said ... but I say..." ? It is clear from this passage (Matthew 5-7) that God's ideal plan is a place of true freedom and love. Which is what we see before the Fall as well. What happens in Exodus, and indeed the entire Old Testament afterward, is after the Fall, i.e., where sin exists. God does not want slavery, but it existed because humans instituted it and because of our fallen nature we take advantage of others. When the new heavens and new earth are created, there will be no such thing.

But I also think it is important to remember again that a slave often meant a hired worker. Slavery then did not necessarily mean something oppressive. We assume it is oppressive because of our familiarity with slavery in the U.S. But we can't assume the two are the same. I'm sure some were oppressive, but I do not think God was--is--okay with it.

I think you may have answered this in a previous post, but were you a Christian at one point? It seems like you have quite a bit of familiarity with the Bible! :)

Lucas, I think Disqus ate your reply. Luckily I did get a copy of it in my email. Here's my reply -- until it too disappears! :DI agree with you that MLK's letter sees ending slavery as one goal needed for freedom. By the same token we know from people today that two people can look at the Bible and come to different conclusions. Each side will bring up certain passage and each side will claim the other is ignoring other passages. It's not so outrageous why people like Martin Luther King and Willaim Wilberforce will focus on the passages stressing love and sweeping the ones that advocate slavery under the rug.About the points you made:1. Context is very important. According to the Bible the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptian for 400, 430, or 450 years (depending on the verse). During that time it's safe to say that they themselves did not possess slaves. When they were given the rules by God that run from Exodus 20 to 24 (including the Ten Commandments) they were partway through their 40 year journey in the desert and still had no slaves. So we know based on context that slavery was not something practiced for several centuries when told by God how to practice it. You don't do something solely because an ancestor did it in 1587.One very important rule from God that often gets ignored by those who defend slavery because neighboring nations also practiced it is Leviticus 20:23 "You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them." So we know based on context that the actions of other nations have no bearing on what the Hebrews could and could not do according to God. Heck, God told his people to do things like rest every 7 days, what to eat, whether to let sorcers live, what fringes to wear, and so many other things; yet defenders of slavery say God simply could not tell his people to not enslave others.2. The rules regarding slaves that I and others have quoted here regarding slavery in Exodus and Leviticus are said to come directly from God. I can't imagine that God would give rules to his people that he does not condone.3. If a person kidnaps a woman, holds her captive, and then abuses her it doesn't matter if that kidnapper refers to the victim as his girlfriend. When you say we should let the text speak for itself, I agree. It shows Yahweh outlining, allowing, and condoing despicable acts.4. There are a few parts you are leaving out concerning those passages. If a Hebrew man is given a wife or has a child while he is enslaved then they are not to be released when he is. Then if that man wishes to not be separated from his family then he tells his master that he loves his family and agrees to remain with his master for life. He then gets his ear pierced to a wall with an awl. By God's own rules he sees absoltely nothing wrong with blackmailing a man by threatening to break up a family. As I mentioned before this choice (terrible as it isu) isn't offered to non-Hebrews or those born or sold into slavery.Also to say we should compare the practices for enslavement laid out by Yahweh with that of other nations is moral relativism, a practice the Church strongly discourages. More important than that is the idea of an omniscient and all loving god. If God can see every possible society past or future, real or imagined, and he chooses one that explicitly allows for cruelty despite it being completely unnecessary.I can't buy into the idea that because the Bible sometimes says to be nice to one another that this somehow supercedes all the very specific terrible acts God allows for in great detail. We all know someone who professes to be fair, to claim that they treat people equally, then when the topic of group X comes up they don't see the disconnect between what they claim and what they do. God in the Bible twice calls slaves property. It specifically says slaves can be manslaughtered (Exodus 21:20-21) specifically because they are property. The penalty for killing another person's slave is less than killing another person's family member. We have to consider all of what the Bible says regarding slaves, not ignore those passages which endorse it and the terrible acts that come with it wholeheartedly.The one mention Jesus has concerning slavery is an analogy (which he doesn't say is incorrect) where those who do wrong but aren't aware it's wrong will be beaten with "few stripes". Jesus condemned so much but said not a word against slavery.I say no when you ask, "If one claims to have a higher view of morality than God, does that then mean they are claiming to be God?" If a person says they are more moral than a president, a prime minister, a teacher, or whomever that person doesn't claim to take that same mantle. I can claim I am moral than Zeus without thinking I'm a god myself. In the same way I consider myself more moral than the god of the Bible. An all powerful and all knowing god would be able to teach his people how to act morally but giving them instruction on how to act immorally without fear of punsihment. We don't teach our children to do wrong then later to do right. I hate to say it, but I find believers are the first to limit the power of God when not doing so causes unconfortable questions to arise.Thank you again for this conversation, Lucas!

Lucas, I hadn't read MLK's letter since I was in school. I'm glad you did as it is quite a read. That being said I don't see where in that letter that he is using biblical principles and quotes to support the fight to abolish slavery."A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God." If you take the quotes that OverlappingMagisteria quoted above it's plain to see that at times the moral law is in direct conflict with the law of God. Later Rev. King mentions how several had refused "to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake." Where does one go, someone who knows slavery is wrong, where does he go when the supposed arbiter of what is good and right -- the author of what is claimed is the highest moral law -- says slavery is moral with only the mildest of restrictions?If I may, I have a recommendation for you. There was a movie on PBS a few years back called "God On Trial". It was the likely apocraphyl story of a group of men in a concentration camp who put God on trial for breaking his covenant with them. The scene I link to here while not talking about slavery does touch on several points where God's morality, especially in areas where God commands his people to engage in cruel acts upon others, contradicts the false notion of a loving deity.

Mike,

You write, "Legal slavery in the Western world was abolished despite what the Bible and Church said, not because of it."

I'd encourage you to read Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail if you've never read it before. On my reading of it, he seems to use biblical principles and quotes passages from scripture to support the case for fighting to abolish slavery. In any case it's a fascinating read and I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Cheers,
Lucas

Thanks. :)
It was a conversation on Eucharistic miracles.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/strangenotions/do_theological_claims_need_to_be_falsifiable/#comment-2665326540

Hello Paul,

I owe you an apology. I said I would respond to a comment of yours, and never got back to it. Sorry about that. Nice to hear from you again.

NO our original query was Yah cannot act immorally HIM
self, HE can be besmirched (blasphemed) by others, and
is most likely a many daily occurrance.

Well he does "command" to do what we consider immoral
such as to Kill all by the Israelites, when they didn't, and
kept some of the good stuff, & "Samuel heard the bleeting
of the Sheep, against Yah's command to kill all", they were
in trouble and Samuel who spoke for Yah, passed severe
judgement on Israel.

Anyway you may believe as you wish, will do likewise.

Over and out. (sr)

So in the same speech in Exodus where God gives great detail on how slavery is to be practiced, he also demanded that people don't murder, that they honor the Sabbath, pay someone you've wronged by negligence, not to engage in bestiality, not to eat meat torn by wild beasts, not accept bribes, and dozens of other things. There's no "allowing" by God to not do as he commands. Yet, slavery seems to be the exception. It makes far more sense to say that the character of God saw no issue whatsoever with slavery.

IF he were an immoral sinner, he could not be just Judge or all the living or the dead. That idea is dead in the water.

If you say A can't be true because B is true, you have to show that B is true. What you're essentially saying is that the character of God can't be besmirched because doing so would besmirch the character of God.

"god does not act immorally" Yes, you can take that as a YES, from here. Ha, needed that one. Appreciate you very, very, dry Humor. Great for sure.Have a great rest of your week Doug, you are a very wise man. Take care.

I'll take that as a yes.