You Must See Mel Gibson's Movie Apocalypto
I'm not in the habit of recommending movies here, but for an absolutely amazing movie showing the (Aztec's, no, corrected) the Mayans in action, I heartily recommend people rent Mel Gibson's Apocalypto.
It vividly shows what it was like to be captured into slavery and what it was like to be marked for human sacrifice. Surely this movie also depicts what it was like when American slave traders captured Africans as slaves too, with some variations, since this was done by gunpoint.
While I was at first hesitant to do so, because it was Gibson's movie, and because is was subtitled and not in English, it will show you what it was like to live in that day. There are very few subtitles anyway because of the action of the movie itself, and during a greater portiton of it no subtitles are even needed. GET THAT MOVIE!
I find it interesting, though, that Gibson doesn't see how his ending doesn't help anything, because the Spanish Conquistadors brought an end to millions of lives through bloodshed and the spread of European diseases, along with the adoption of Catholicism by gun point.
Did you know that after slavery was abolished by the British Empire, who ruled the seas, that American slave traders would turn their ships broadside when a British war ship approached and dumped their "cargo" overboard so as not to get caught? All of this reminds me yet again that God could easily have said in the Bible, "Thou shalt not trade, sell, buy, own, or beat slaves," and said it often enough so professing Christians would not misunderstand.
40 comments:
I agree. It is an awesome flick. It is almost too big of a movie to get one's mind around.
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
You got your Mesoamericans wrong there John.
The characters in the movie are supposed to be Mayans, not Aztecs.
I only saw the end of Apocalypto, but from the basics of the plot, it follows the same formula as many other Mel Gibson period pieces like Braveheart and The Patriot, or even Mad Max.
An ordinary man just wants to live in peace with his family, and outside oppressors come in and destroy everything that matters to him, so he must rise up and fight against them.
The story is basically the same. Just the costumes are different.
Apocalypto does not tells us very much about Mayan high society. These are people who observed the heavens and created an accurate calendar. All Mel Gibson tells us about them is that they liked to cut out peoples hearts.
>>>You got your Mesoamericans wrong there John. The characters in the movie are supposed to be Mayans, not Aztecs.
I thought that since it was by Mel Gibson, the Catholic, that they were supposed to be Jews - or "the f@#$ing Jews" as he likes to call them.
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
Yes I understand. This isn't the first time I was wrong, and I suspect it won't be the last.
I had been steering clear of it because of Mel Gibson and all, but it sounds like I should check it out. I just added it to my Netflix queue.
"All of this reminds me yet again that God could easily have said in the Bible, 'Thou shalt not trade, sell, buy, own, or beat slaves,' and said it often enough so professing Christians would not misunderstand."
What is important to understand is that in Biblical times the meaning of the word "slave" is very different than ours today. In many cases the relationship between a slave and master was like an employer and employee. Many "slaves" had in fact more power and better lifestyles than free men. Surely John wouldn't expect God to forbid this type of relationship!
John's right in saying that the Bible does not forbid slavery, but it does give very specific instructions for how masters to treat their slaves and vice versa:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
In fact the equality of mankind is one of Christianity's central tenets! This is why I fail to understand why John believes Christianity hasn't done enough to end slavery. Don't forget, the first anti-slavery movement was a Christian one!
Jon, it's very true that parts of the Bible are concerned with liberty and equality--it's more true of the latter half of the Bible than the first half.
If an all-knowing God is the author of Scripture, he would have known how his very words would be used directly in support of the slave trade (I'm speaking of both Old and New Testament passages which do not condemn slavery, but merely regulate its practice). To John's point, the Holy Spirit could have condemned the inhuman nature of the institution. There is nothing in Scripture which demands its abolition. While it's true that not all slave-master relationships were degrading, comparing it with our modern-day employer-employee relationship is something of stretch. The one thing most slaves couldn't do was quit their jobs without fatal repercussions. There were no unions representing slaves. Slave labor laws often provided only minimal protections, with the balance of the laws in favor of the master. Slaves were regarded as property--period. The Bible further validates the normality of slavery by describing us as the slaves of Christ (Romans 6).
The bible does not condemn slavery because it does not find fault with it. Where it finds fault is how slaves can be mistreated, and that's where the bible begins laying down laws. Leviticus orders masters to not mistreat slaves but to fear God. Paul explains that we are all equal in God's eyes, regardless of whatever ownership deals we have arranged during our lives. They don't believe that there's something wrong with slavery, but that both slaves and masters must have higher priorities than their relationship to each other. In other words slavery is an economic tool, and like all tools it has uses and misuses.
In fact I think most would agree that when it comes to slavery it's not the tool that we object to, but the misuse. Think of what John wrote, "Did you know that after slavery was abolished by the British Empire, who ruled the seas, that American slave traders would turn their ships broadside when a British war ship approached and dumped their 'cargo' overboard so as not to get caught?"
What is really despicable about such an action is not that these were people who had forfeited their freedom to another person, but that they were kidnapped, treated like cargo and murdered the second they became inconvenient. They had their humanity stripped away. Were they forced to enter such service due to their own misfortune (such as losing a battle or falling into debt), treated respectfully and fairly and openly given their freedom once slavery was outlawed we would be talking about a very different thing. What makes it immoral is not the arrangement but the behavior of the arrangers.
Freedom is an interesting concept and one that Christianity considers illusory. In Christianity it is the servants who are celebrated. I do not support the economic practice of slavery, that's a tool we are more likely to misuse, but I'm open to its practice socially. In essence that's the sacrifice of parenthood. The parent MUST attend to the needs of the child. It's their moral obligation. How awful would we think it if the parent said to the child, "You're not getting fed today because you're not the boss of me!" or even worse, "I don't feel like being your parent any more. It's time for you to get your three-year-old butt out of my house." Parents simply do NOT have that freedom.
>>>Jon:...In fact I think most would agree that when it comes to slavery it's not the tool that we object to, but the misuse...
Jon, have you ever actally taken a poll on this? Did the poll include the slaves themselves?!
Are you implying that the abolition of human slavery was misguided and it really just should have fallen under government regulation? Ie:
Ex 21:
20 And if a man smite his man–servant or his maid–servant, with a rod, and the party die under his hands, he shall be surely punished.
21 But if the servant continue to live a day or two, let not the master be punished; for he is his money.
But these were the very rules under which human slavery in the South operated. It was run in a very Christian manner. The slave owners were devout, Bible believing saints. They fought to the death to defend what they believed to be a divinely sanctioned privilege.
I don't think that your poll reflects the common current thinking even among Christians.
However, what is interesting is that the next verses ARE appealed to by modern Christians, as they think them to vilify abortion:
Lev 21:
22 And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.
23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life,
24 {1} eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, {1) Mt 5:38}
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
From this passage - which immediately follows the verses on it being ok, albeit financially unhelpful, to beat your slave (male or female) to within an inch of their life, they infer that babies (statistically likely to be elected to burn in everlasting torment) are all soooo precious to Jehovah (the compassionate) and therefore, abortion at any time for any reason whatsoever is a horrific murder that really, really pisses God off (as if he needed any encouragment)....
But a closer look at the passage shows that a death that ensues requires a monetary compensation - it is just a misdemeanor.
So, obviously, Christians have wholesale abandoned one part of the chapter (about beating one's slave) and embraced the next passage in a way that is unfaithful to its plain meaning - and then declare that they have a profound, divinely given moral vision. In addition, we are given this circle:
* people should believe in the God of these morals, because we need morals
* people must obey these morals because they believe in this God
And yet, these morals are imoral. These are codified barbarism. These are morals rejected by modern Christians, on the one hand, and conflated on the other. This is barbarism, confusion and hypocrisy, not any clear moral vision.
I devote a chapter in my book to the subject.
http://bibleshockers.com
Bill Ross
jon says:
In fact I think most would agree that when it comes to slavery it's not the tool that we object to, but the misuse.
What Bill said. If you feel this way, jon, are you campaigning for a return of slavery, of course in a kindler, gentler, form? If not, why not? Wouldn't it be nice to have servants who aren't allowed to quit? Wouldn't it be a great feeling to know that you aren't just employing someone, but that you own them?
Zilch I answered your questions in the last paragraph of my post.
"Are you implying that the abolition of human slavery was misguided and it really just should have fallen under government regulation?"
No I'm saying that slavery the relationship is not evil, it's the mistreating of the relationship that is. If slavery were entered due to a bad debt rather than from kidnapping, it would not be immoral. After all, what are convicts other than slaves to the state?
"Ie:
Ex 21:
20 And if a man smite his man–servant or his maid–servant, with a rod, and the party die under his hands, he shall be surely punished.
21 But if the servant continue to live a day or two, let not the master be punished; for he is his money.
But these were the very rules under which human slavery in the South operated. It was run in a very Christian manner."
I don't think Christian is the word you should use here. This is Old Testament law, it is Judaism. Christ did away with these laws, telling us to apply the intent, not the letter. There is still wisdom in the passage but it should not be applied to our current situation. To properly explain why Old Testament law is no longer applicable would take quite a bit of time, so unless someone specifically requests such an explanation I'd prefer to leave it at that.
"The slave owners were devout, Bible believing saints. They fought to the death to defend what they believed to be a divinely sanctioned privilege."
And they were wrong to justify their practices by the Bible. Obviously wrong. Most of the New Testament is dedicated to admonishing such practices. They are Christians that you can safely accuse of wishful thinking.
However, like I wrote earlier, the mistake was not owning slaves but the ways they treated the ones they had (and the ways they acquired more).
"I don't think that your poll reflects the common current thinking even among Christians."
I didn't take a poll and I don't doubt what you wrote.
"However, what is interesting is that the next verses ARE appealed to by modern Christians, as they think them to vilify abortion:
Lev 21:
22 And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.
23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life,
24 {1} eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, {1) Mt 5:38}
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
I'm a modern Christian and I've never heard anyone use this passage to attack abortion. There is wisdom here but the message seems pretty self-evident to me. If someone hurts a pregnant woman and the child is deformed that person has to pay a penalty. I don't see how it should be applied to abortion.
"(statistically likely to be elected to burn in everlasting torment)"
Christians make no such claim. The Bible makes it clear that one must choose evil in order to be in Hell. The Bible also talks of reaching an age of discernment before having to choose between right and wrong. The age is different depending on the child, but it's safe to say no one is making moral decisions from the womb.
"From this passage - which immediately follows the verses on it being ok, albeit financially unhelpful, to beat your slave (male or female) to within an inch of their life, they infer that babies (statistically likely to be elected to burn in everlasting torment) are all soooo precious to Jehovah (the compassionate) and therefore, abortion at any time for any reason whatsoever is a horrific murder that really, really pisses God off (as if he needed any encouragment)...."
The Bible never says that it is ok to beat a slave to an inch of his life. You're extracting meaning that isn't present. What it says is that in the Old Testament society that the Israelites were constructing there should be no legal penalty to beating a slave to an inch of his life. There are plenty of moral repercussions.
"But a closer look at the passage shows that a death that ensues requires a monetary compensation - it is just a misdemeanor."
I don't know where you're getting that from. The passage you quote follows a list of actions that require punishment by death and it doesn't mention anything about monetary compensation.
"So, obviously, Christians have wholesale abandoned one part of the chapter (about beating one's slave) and embraced the next passage in a way that is unfaithful to its plain meaning - and then declare that they have a profound, divinely given moral vision."
I'm a Christian and not only have I not made such a claim I have never met anyone who has. If they did they would either have insight that eludes me or they could be classified as wishful thinkers. What is interesting here is that you're not objecting to the correct interpretation of the Bible but the misinterpretation of it. This is not to say that I completely understand everything concept in the Bible, just that we both agree misinterpretations should not be tolerated.
"In addition, we are given this circle:
* people should believe in the God of these morals, because we need morals
* people must obey these morals because they believe in this God"
I don't think you can lump all morals together into one category. Besides, the passages you quote are not moral laws, they are legal ones.
The argument you refer to is very different than what you describe. It is not that we say you should believe in God because you should have morals, it's that without God morals become baseless. They become no more than preferences, making it no more wrong to kill someone than to wear socks with sandals.
If you wish to believe that morality transcends preference you must answer why. Our answer is that morality is coded into the very nature of this world and the next by the creator. We also believe that the creator has their own ideas about morality. Still, there is nothing to stop you from justifying your morality through creation without adopting the morality of the creator. You can say I won't kill because there's a higher power and that doesn't obligate you to say, "Well, now I have to find homosexuality immoral".
"And yet, these morals are imoral. These are codified barbarism."
And they were a step up from what the Israelites were doing before. You must remember not to take the point of view that just because Old Testament law does not forbid an action it condones it. A better way to understand it is that these laws are the minimum requirement to keep a nation pure. I'm sure more laws could have been added but it didn't take long for the Israelites to break even these ones. What would more have done?
"And yet, these morals are imoral. These are codified barbarism. These are morals rejected by modern Christians, on the one hand, and conflated on the other. This is barbarism, confusion and hypocrisy, not any clear moral vision."
I wonder if morality will ever be clear. The more I think about morality the more questions I have. What I can confidently say, however, is that Christianity has positively changed my entire perspective on the matter. It has given me insight on human nature that I would have never learned anywhere else. I also wonder how your philosophy handles the same accusation. The last thing I would attribute to atheism (or secular humanism) is a clear moral vision.
Jon, I would contend that the problems with slavery are inherent in the institution itself. Giving one man absolute power and control over another can only lead to bad things. And check this out: if man has a sinful nature, as the Bible teaches, how could God condone the practice of slavery? Giving one man the right to regard another as his property would (and did) inevitably lead to abuses. So much for the wisdom of God.
You contend that Christianity undermined slavery. How come it took how many centuries to do so? I contend it was because the social and political climate was not ripe--this in spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people belonged to some Christian denomination in the early years of this country. Historically, social reform movements have been driven by concerned men and women who recognized a problem and went about to attack it using any and every means possible--this includes using the Bible (or any other recognized source of authority) as a tool. It doesn't mean that the Bible necessarily inspired the movement.
You're right about one thing: there is nothing explicity anti-slavery about the Bible's teachings.
In fact I think most would agree that when it comes to slavery it's not the tool that we object to, but the misuse.
I will join my fellow commenters is loudly saying "You do not speak for me."
After all, what are convicts other than slaves to the state?
Prisoners. Prison labor is voluntary and paid (albeit at very low wages). A prisoner may choose to work or not to work. There are active non-profits heavily involved to ensure that prison labor does not become slavery.
>>>...After all, what are convicts other than slaves to the state?...
In the US, criminals do not become slaves of the state.
>>>...There is still wisdom in the passage but it should not be applied to our current situation....
What wisdom do you see in the passage? How should it have informed slavery in the US?
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
>>>Prisoners. Prison labor is voluntary and paid (albeit at very low wages). A prisoner may choose to work or not to work. There are active non-profits heavily involved to ensure that prison labor does not become slavery.
I heard on the radio yesterday that there were many prisoners involved in fighting the San Diego fires. They were paid a $1 per hour. But it is voluntary and many would be chomping at the bit for the opportunity.
HOWEVER... I must say that there is something HORRIBLY WRONG with the US prison system that I DO NO HEAR being addressed and if I had any authority, it would be one of the first things that I would address. That is, that people who go to our prisons must fear violence from other prisoners (rape, etc.)
And of course, murderers are being let out for lack of room.
Personally, I think the death penalty needs to be used for capital cases. Illegal immigrants need to be deported and locked out. Anyone trying to cross the border illegally should be shot to death when they step over the line.
Then our prisons can serve justice.
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
"Jon, I would contend that the problems with slavery are inherent in the institution itself. Giving one man absolute power and control over another can only lead to bad things. And check this out: if man has a sinful nature, as the Bible teaches, how could God condone the practice of slavery? Giving one man the right to regard another as his property would (and did) inevitably lead to abuses. So much for the wisdom of God."
But by that logic God should not let us do anything, and that is contrary to the purpose of life. Every human struggle is inherently flawed because we are inherently flawed. This will never be a perfect world. It will always be abused.
"You contend that Christianity undermined slavery. How come it took how many centuries to do so? I contend it was because the social and political climate was not ripe--this in spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people belonged to some Christian denomination in the early years of this country."
Atheists (sorry, I'm lumping all you into one group) have a terrible habit of judging a philosophy by its abuse. They judge Christianity by the Christians. The sad truth is that Christians are no more perfect than anyone else. We don't pretend to be. Heck, that's why we're Christians! Who would need a doctor if no one was sick?! I'm here to defend the philosophy, not its followers (though we're not half as bad as you make us out to be).
Perhaps you will object that I claimed Christianity helped end slavery, so I contradict myself. When Christians are good I welcome them but when they are evil I say "judge the philosophy, not the followers". What is important to remember is the motivation behind the actions. Christians had no motivation to end slavery (other than their moral convictions) but it wasn't Christianity that motivated them to take slaves in the first place! No one said, "Man I really wish I didn't have to have these slaves but that's what God wants." It was monetary gain. On the other hand there was no monetary gain to abolishing slavery. We both agree that the slave owners acted out of greed and the Quakers out of piety. What we disagree on is whether Christianity is flawed because there were too many of the former and not enough of the latter, and I think that is a silly way to evaluate a belief system. Besides, we both know how quickly atheism would crumble if it was judged by its abuse.
I don't find it surprising that colonialists regularly chose monetary gain over correct morality. This has happened so often throughout history (both personal and universal) that I've come to expect it. Perhaps there were some who recognized the evil in the system but felt too small and powerless to change an institution that had always existed. There are always plenty of reason why to not do the right thing.
"Historically, social reform movements have been driven by concerned men and women who recognized a problem and went about to attack it using any and every means possible--this includes using the Bible (or any other recognized source of authority) as a tool. It doesn't mean that the Bible necessarily inspired the movement."
I didn't say that the Bible inspired it. I said Christianity did. I don't see what we're disagreeing about here, especially since it is usually Christian moral standards that make Christians concerned in the first place. Are you saying the Quakers thought something along the lines of, "Man, I hate to go against Christianity, but this slavery has to stop!"?
"You're right about one thing: there is nothing explicity anti-slavery about the Bible's teachings."
Slavery was an institution that most of the ancient world's economy relied upon. Banning slavery then would be like banning banks now. Besides, I don't find anything evil about the institution itself, only the abuses that it lends itself to. In fact Christianity often uses the image of a slave as encouragement and direction. They're meant to be our role models.
"I will join my fellow commenters is loudly saying 'You do not speak for me.'"
Great, then how about you explain your views. Or is this a one-way street?
"Prisoners. Prison labor is voluntary and paid (albeit at very low wages). A prisoner may choose to work or not to work. There are active non-profits heavily involved to ensure that prison labor does not become slavery."
The point is that their freedom is being revoked. They are told what to do, where to go, what to wear, when to eat, how to eat, when to fornicate, who they are allowed to fornicate with, etc. Their days and nights are planned out for them, their lives are dictated by the state for as long as the state determines. That is a form of slavery.
What would it take to convince you that it was slavery? If they spent the time pressing license plates instead of playing basketball? I hardly think that matters at this point.
Here, let me use a different example. A soldier does not decide what to do with their day. They are told what to do, when to do it, how it is to be done and if they do not perform adequately they are severely reprimanded. Soldiers are regularly forced to risk and life and limb in active duty. Many lose their lives, often without even having the choice to save themselves! These might be noble, necessary deaths, but they are not the choice of the victim! Let's take the example of a person forced into the military due to financial hardship (as was how many became slaves in ancient times). The economy screwed the guy over and to make ends meet he became a soldier. Also, as it turns out, he is so in debt that he will be forced to spend the next decade in the military. Do we resent the army for offering this solution? For allowing the man to trade in a year of us life for hard labour? We might resent the economy for forcing him into such a position, but none of our disdain is directed to the military itself. Of course we will feel absolutely outraged if the military ever overstepped its boundaries and abused its soldiers, but so long as they are treated fairly and respectful we will not find such an arrangement morally disagreeable. How is this different from slavery? Especially slavery due to a bad debt? One might object by saying that the military is necessary and slavery is not. But in the ancient world slavery WAS necessary! It formed the backbone of their economy.
"What wisdom do you see in the passage? How should it have informed slavery in the US?"
Please remember that these laws are limits, not instructions! God is not INSTRUCTING the Israelites to beat their slaves! To believe otherwise is to draw meaning that isn't present.
If you mean that you don't find the passage wise I think that's because you're looking at it out of context. This is one of a series of regulations designed to maintain the moral purity of Israel. All that the passage is saying is anyone who beats their slave to death must be duly punished. I doubt many of us will disagree with such a law.
jon says:
Zilch I answered your questions in the last paragraph of my post.
No, you didn't, jon. All you said is that parenthood is a form of slavery, and thus implied that slavery is okay. Sorry, that doesn't hold water. I'm a parent, and I did not buy my children, nor do I own them, nor can I sell them. Unless I'm mistaken, slavery, in the Bible and elsewhere, means the buying, owning, and selling of human beings.
So I repeat my question: if you think there is nothing wrong with the buying, owning, and selling of human beings, why are you not campaining for a reinstitution of slavery? Of course, you could also simply move to Mauritania, or Niger, and be happy.
Zilch, this is the second time I will ask you to read that paragraph. Not only does it address the remarks in the last half of your post, it shows some comprehension errors on your part. I didn't write that children are slaves to their parents. I wrote the opposite.
But even if you had gotten it correct and said that children are not able to buy or sell their parents that still is not important because I was talking about the role of the parent in relation to the role of the slave not the role of the child in relation to the role of the slave owner.
Still, I think the soldier analogy is much stronger so let's switch to that one. After all, soldiers are traded between posts similarly to how slaves are traded between owners. Soldiers have no choice about who they will serve or where they will do it.
jon- you're right, I switched the relationship around. My bad. But that doesn't affect the conclusion: parenthood is not slavery, and does not justify slavery.
And you have still not answered my question: if there's nothing wrong with slavery, why are you not campaining for its reintitution?
Ok Zilch. You're obviously not going to read the paragraph so I'm just going to repost.
"I do not support the economic practice of slavery, that's a tool we are more likely to misuse, but I'm open to its practice socially."
If you would like me to expand on the point I would be happy to but I'm not fond of repeating myself.
I did read what you wrote, jon. And I don't understand what you mean by distinguishing "economic" from "social" slavery. How exactly do you define "slavery"? Would someone kidnapping a child, imprisoning it, and forcing it to work for no pay, qualify as "social" slavery, if no money changes hands?
I mean that I do not believe that slavery as an economic system is beneficial to our society because we have a much better system already. Were we living in ancient times I believe we would be forced to adopt slavery as an economic system because we would not have the resources to put our current one into place.
What I meant by applying the idea of slavery socially was that we must submit to one another for the greater good of society. A parent gives much to the care of their child. They do not submit their authority, so there are ways in which they are still free, but there are other ways (such as the time and resources it takes to care for the child) in which they are certainly enslaved because they are not given an option. Simply being a parent makes them enter into a relationship of submission to the needs of their child.
Similarly what if I were working on a project with an equal partner and that partner began acting irrationally and unfairly. What if they made claims that I had done little work, and that the work I had done was not up to their standard. What if they said the only way I can make things right is by giving up my weekend for the sake of the project. I could fight for my rights; defend my work, but if my words fall on deaf ears I am left with only two options: break the group apart or submit. Breaking the group apart is not an awful choice, sometimes its the best one, but only submission will see the project through. This is what I mean by slavery socially: giving up the rights you deserve for the sake of the greater good.
I think we are beginning to stray off topic. I still believe that the solider analogy is the best example of a type of slavery our society condones. I would prefer to follow that thread if you are willing.
jon- while I agree that some kinds of relationships between people can be considered similar to slavery, and while I would also say that it's impossible to clearly define what constitutes slavery and what doesn't, I think we would agree that certain common factors characterized the kind of slavery described, and condoned, in, say, ancient Greece, the Bible, and the American South. These include the ideas that a slave:
-cannot choose to leave, ever
-has no right to pay
-may be bought or sold by the owner.
While a soldier, in, say, the US, has restricted rights compared to a civilian, he or she does have some choice about leaving the service, does have a right to pay, and may not be bought or sold to another owner. Thus the comparison with slavery in the Bible is very weak.
And you say that we would be "forced" to hold slaves if we were living in ancient times. Do you mean that all peoples in ancient times held slaves? Not true, as far as I know. Or do you just mean that if we lived in ancient slaveholding societies such as Greece or Judea, say, that we would be "forced" to hold slaves? No free will in the matter?
"While a soldier, in, say, the US, has restricted rights compared to a civilian, he or she does have some choice about leaving the service, does have a right to pay, and may not be bought or sold to another owner. Thus the comparison with slavery in the Bible is very weak."
But the comparison holds up when you consider my example of a person forced into the military due to economic constraints. How is spending ten years in the military due to personal debts different then spending ten years as a slave because of a bad debt? Also, while soldiers are not bought and sold the way that slaves are, they are forced to work under a master they didn't choose, doing work they don't want to do in a location they did not pick, and they can be reassigned at the drop of a hat. This is the second time I've explained this. From now on if you write a reply without reading my post I will simply refuse to answer.
"And you say that we would be 'forced' to hold slaves if we were living in ancient times. Do you mean that all peoples in ancient times held slaves? Not true, as far as I know. Or do you just mean that if we lived in ancient slaveholding societies such as Greece or Judea, say, that we would be 'forced' to hold slaves? No free will in the matter?"
I mean these societies depended on slaves. 25% of the Roman Empire around Jesus' lifetime was enslaved. Sure, there were households without slaves, it was up to them whether to take them or not, but every ancient economic system depended on some form of slavery. I think the reason this idea sounds so foreign to us is because of all the modern conveniences we take for granted. This was a world without any form of police, any form of banking, heck, any form of reliable currency! People traded livestock!
jon says:
From now on if you write a reply without reading my post I will simply refuse to answer.
This doesn't really deserve an answer. Comments?
[...]but every ancient economic system depended on some form of slavery.
Really? You know this for a fact? Can you document it?
"Really? You know this for a fact? Can you document it?"
Surely pointing out that the Epyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Babylonian and Roman empires all relied on slaves should be enough. This is besides the point anyways. All that my argument relies on is the belief that slavery was valuable enough as an economic practice to justify its use by the Israelites.
In other words the ends justify the means? At least when those ends are economic in nature.
"In other words the ends justify the means? At least when those ends are economic in nature."
No, at least not in this case. No justification is needed because I'm putting it forth that slavery itself is not immoral. It is the mistreatment of the slaves that is immoral. The institution itself, while outdated and severely flawed, had good uses. This is why the Bible does not roundly condemn slavery as John wishes it would. In fact many passages celebrate the role of the slave.
I think history makes a sound argument against the institution of slavery, despite the notable achievements of slaves themselves. I could understand if the Bible's stance was, "You know, this slavery thing is real a bitch, but one day Christianity will be a big deal and overthrow it" (I'm sure the King James Version would have said it more articulately than this!). But that's not really the case at all. Yahweh actually gives his stamp of endorsement to slavery in the Pentateuch. Unbelievable! I'm in danger of repeating my arguments at this point, so I won't go on.
Just one more thing: Jon, you seem like an otherwise reasonable man and probably a decent guy. I'm genuinely curious as to whether you would be taking such a permissive stance on slavery had the Bible not ruled in its favor?
"Just one more thing: Jon, you seem like an otherwise reasonable man and probably a decent guy."
Don't count me out yet!
"I'm genuinely curious as to whether you would be taking such a permissive stance on slavery had the Bible not ruled in its favor?"
I wouldn't because I would not have the insight that was taught to me by the Bible. It was because the Bible took such a stance that I reevaluated my more average position on slavery and came to see the shades of gray.
But what if I woke up tomorrow and, to my bewilderment, realized that I had read it all backwards, that Bible actually forbids slavery just as John Loftus wished it would. Maybe I had forgotten to read the "Just kidding! Slavery is forbidden!" in the footnotes.
If that was the case than I would certainly be confused. I have actually dealt with such dilemmas before, where I thought the Bible took a certain stance and it turns out it was the opposite. What usually happens is I spend the next while wondering how this could be; how it could fit in with the doctrine that I already accept. This process usually lasts months because, though I prefer to decide as quickly as possible, I am also fearful of having beliefs that change as often as a weathervane. In these matters inertia is encouraged. Still, if I cannot find a way to reconcile the beliefs I admit I honestly have no idea what to think on the subject and start examining other beliefs that might need changing. For example, I used to be a determinist. It was a belief I adopted as a teenager, and I believed it was a Christian one. Over the years that belief was shaken (as it didn't sit well other things I knew to be true) until a year ago when I heard a Ravi Zacharias lecture that convinced me determinism was entirely flawed because it did not account for human free will. At that time I reevaluated my position and realized that it made much more sense for Christianity to be separate from determinism.
If some time in the future I heard a similar lecture that had the same effect while putting forth that slavery is an immoral institution, I would certainly reevaluate my position. After all, denial can only last so long. It might not be an instant 180, but I would certainly have to give it some thought and refine my views accordingly.
While the Bible informs my views I rarely take it as the ultimate dictator of my life. I often put my understanding of the world before it. Perhaps I'm foolish to. Maybe I just need more faith. But should they ever conflict I wouldn't be able to place my interpretation of the Bible over my interpretation of my experiences because the interpretation is an experience in itself. Here's a better way to think of it. The Bible is a map to a maze. It comes in handy when I'm lost, but I don't need it if I'm staring at the exit.
Thanks for helping me to better understand your perspective. Understand that it seems surreal to me that we are having this conversation right now, today, in our post-modern world. I would have thought that the last 200+ years of public debate over the issue and a bloody civil war would have settled the issue once and for all.
There was no civil war in Canada. We're due for one! (it should go without saying but...just kidding)
Aha! Canadian! I should have known. ;)
All that my argument relies on is the belief that slavery was valuable enough as an economic practice to justify its use by the Israelites.
I will grant that, in pre-industrial society, slave labor had value (although it was still immoral). However, the Bible doesn't grudgingly endorse slavery only in pre-industrial society as a necessary evil (necessary only because an omnipotent God chose to make it so, but I digress); it positively affirms slavery as a moral action.
If you are arguing for Jewish morality based on utilitarian issues, then you have the thorny problem of circumcision, which in the septic times of ancient Israel would have had a not insignificant morbidity/mortality rate, and has no obvious utilitarian benefit that could not better be achieved otherwise. Religious anthropologists have weighed heavily against the utilitarian argument for Jewish morality (stoning people for carrying sticks on the Sabbath!?), so using it as an excuse for the endorsement of slavery is a non-starter. It simply was a reflection the commonly held human morality of the time, and exactly what we would expect of a moral system NOT inspired by a God.
Further, I would like to use Jon as a present example of how religion makes people approve of actions that they themselves would otherwise find deeply immoral.
Shygetz I'm not one for repeating myself. You're going to have to reread my other posts.
...sigh....here's a recap.......
Slavery is a tool. Do not criticize the tool, criticize the user of the tool, and only if they misuse it. There are proper uses for slavery. One example is military service. Such an analogy is what my argument hinges on. Attack that, not my character!
The bible does not affirm slavery as a moral action, it affirms it as a PERMISSIBLE EXCHANGE. I never brought up utilitarianism, I never even suggested it, and your second post is ridiculous and cheap.
Jon, you're making a big assumption here by comparing slavery with a (seemingly) amoral "tool." Then you build on that false analogy to make your point. Are all tools equal in value, importance, and impact? There have been some terrible "tools" throughout the years, like Hitler's gas chambers. I think you need to take a step back and evaluate the relative usefulness of slavery as a tool versus the systems of labor we have progressed to over the years. Yahweh could have introduced a more egalitarian society, without the flawed "tool" of slavery, but he didn't.
I don't know what point your trying to make with the "permissible exchange" bit. Again, are you trying to couch slavery in neutral terms? If so, I would like to do the same for prostitution (it could also be seen as a permissible exchange) and drug dealing (again, a permissible exchange). In fact, it seems that God was rather relaxed in allowing for multiple wives and/or concubines in those days. Most Christians today would see this as a morally questionable practice, just like slavery.
Let's face it, the God of the Bible is anything but morally upright, consistent, and progressive.
"Jon, you're making a big assumption here by comparing slavery with a (seemingly) amoral 'tool.'"
I didn't think I was assuming anything. What was it I assumed?
"Are all tools equal in value, importance, and impact?"
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that question because I don't see how value, importance and impact relate to morality.
"There have been some terrible 'tools' throughout the years, like Hitler's gas chambers."
Yes, but the problem with the gas chambers is that they were built with the sole intent of being used for evil. That is what makes them terrible. We see them as immoral because we cannot imagine a non-morally corrupt use for them. Actually, I can think of one. Would these gas chambers be equally terrible if it were Hitler on the inside? I think you might find them quite handy in that case! Again, attack the user (and in this case, constructor, because it was constructed with evil intent) of the tool, not the tool itself.
"I think you need to take a step back and evaluate the relative usefulness of slavery as a tool versus the systems of labor we have progressed to over the years."
Well I'm not suggesting we go back to it! I'm saying the Israelites really, really, really wanted slaves. Now, God can be the strict parent and deny them whatever they want because he knows it's not good for them, but people (now and then) complain that he's already too much of a totalitarian! Look at how non-Christians react to his views on sex! These laws are the minimum that God wanted from the Israelites. And they STILL didn't follow them! What would more laws have done?
"Yahweh could have introduced a more egalitarian society, without the flawed 'tool' of slavery, but he didn't."
Yahweh can do a lot for us. He can make my bed in the morning, lace my shoes when I put them on and go to my job so I can stay home and play Playstation 2. But the real question is what does Yahweh want? I think it's clear that Yahweh wants us to figure our way ourselves. Otherwise how would we learn anything? Can you imagine how spoiled and useless we would be if Yahweh did everything we wanted? And, heck, it's not like we listen to his advice anyways!
Besides, the system that Yahweh introduced WAS more egalitarian than what the Israelites were used to, and they still didn't follow it!
Also it's incredibly problematic for us to make suggestions on what God can do to do his job better. Both our perspective and knowledge are so limited. Any proposal for a better way that this world can be run would need to be incredibly airtight.
"I don't know what point your trying to make with the 'permissible exchange' bit."
I was trying to find a new way to say that the Bible doesn't encourage slavery. I don't like repeating myself, so if I'm forced to revisit a point I'll at least try to do it in a new way.
"Again, are you trying to couch slavery in neutral terms? If so, I would like to do the same for prostitution (it could also be seen as a permissible exchange) and drug dealing (again, a permissible exchange)."
No, prostitution is not a morally permissible because it directly violates morality (we're speaking from Christian morality here). That is, unless the prostitute and client live monogamously together for the rest of their lives, and even then there are better ways to go about it than prostitution!
According to Christian morality drug dealing itself is not immoral. Of course, drug dealers only deal drugs because they don't care about the people they're selling to, and that IS immoral, but drug dealing itself is merely frowned upon (and illegal).
"In fact, it seems that God was rather relaxed in allowing for multiple wives and/or concubines in those days."
I don't think relaxed is the right word. I don't even think tolerant is a good word either. One thing that God prizes most of all (more than even we do) is our free will to choose between right and wrong. God never supported the adultery of that time, but he did support a person's decision to choose such evil.
Of course God does intervene eventually, and usually much more mercifully than he initially promised. In fact it was Solomon's extreme promiscuity that broke the kingdom in two!
"Most Christians today would see this as a morally questionable practice, just like slavery."
Yep, but don't forget about cultural differences. Humans have an awful tendency to justify evil behaviour, and sometimes it's much easier to justify evil behaviour in one situation than another. For example, it was probably just as easy for them to justify polygamy as it is for us to justify wastefulness and greed. One of my most impressive talents is my ability to convince myself that I deserve more material goods. I know it's an evil desire, but in my weakness I justify it, and it's very easy to justify because we live in an age and nation of consumerism. The Israelites probably would find our excessive purchasing quite pointless and disgusting, just as we find their polygamy pointless and disgusting. They're both evil, but we're shamelessly adept at giving ourselves wiggle room.
"Let's face it, the God of the Bible is anything but morally upright, consistent, and progressive."
I hardly agree that God isn't morally upright. It's his followers that aren't. Just because God doesn't step in and spank them every time they do something wrong (though some complain he does too much of that already) does not mean he approves of their actions. God is not consistent in his reaction to evil, but he is always consistent on his stance towards it. As for the last characteristic, God wants us to progress ourselves. How rewarding is it if he does it for us? What's the point of us even being around?
Jon, when you referred to slavery as a "tool" that can be used for good or ill, you assume that it is a neutral tool. Thus, you would have us evaluate the uses of this "tool" rather than the value, importance, and impact of the tool itself. Make sense? You can assign slavery to the category of amorality.
You say that the gas chambers were created solely for evil purposes...and human enslavement is not??? (BTW, I wonder if you would feel the same way about gas chambers were Yahweh to have rubber stamped the use of them? In other words, I think your sense of right and wrong is driven more by the Bible than by common sense.)
Would I feel any differently about them if Hitler were killed in them instead of the Jews? Good question. Probably not, and here's why: some "tools" are created for the sole purpose of malice and, as such, they cannot be viewed as neutral. The gas chambers are one, slavery is the other. Again, I think you somewhat arbitrarily assign slavery the status of an amoral, neutral tool, without making a rational case that slavery is strictly a utility. How can enslavement of human beings not be evaluated in the realm of the moral? Calling it a tool is, again, a faulty analogy. It most certainly can be evaluated in an of itself as either good or evil.
"Humans have an awful tendency to justify evil behaviour, and sometimes it's much easier to justify evil behaviour in one situation than another." Totally agree. That's precisely my beef with your stance on slavery.
"God is not consistent in his reaction to evil, but he is always consistent on his stance towards it." Oh really? Check out my article dealing with the moral inconsistencies God in the Bible here.
"Jon, when you referred to slavery as a 'tool' that can be used for good or ill, you assume that it is a neutral tool. Thus, you would have us evaluate the uses of this 'tool' rather than the value, importance, and impact of the tool itself. Make sense? You can assign slavery to the category of amorality."
Value, importance and impact of a tool are all statements that depend on how the tool is used. A hammer is more valuable than a rock, but sometimes I want a rock much more than a hammer.
"You say that the gas chambers were created solely for evil purposes...and human enslavement is not???"
No it wasn't! I think this should be the most obvious point!
"(BTW, I wonder if you would feel the same way about gas chambers were Yahweh to have rubber stamped the use of them? In other words, I think your sense of right and wrong is driven more by the Bible than by common sense.)"
I would refrain from such suggestions because it implies that the morality of the Bible is chosen randomly. The morality of the Bible is hugely interconnected, based on several core beliefs, such as the 10 commandments. If you want to discuss this issue start at the beginning, not the end.
"How can enslavement of human beings not be evaluated in the realm of the moral?"
It can be, and I've found it to be neutral because it can be used for good and bad depending on the user. In this case I stand by my soldier analogy as a way in which slavery is used properly.
"'God is not consistent in his reaction to evil, but he is always consistent on his stance towards it.' Oh really? Check out my article dealing with the moral inconsistencies God in the Bible here."
I enjoyed the read but I'm going to leave this issue unanswered for the moment because I think we already have enough on our plates. I'm trying to keep my DC visits to under an hour!
Post a Comment