nah.
I never asked you to got into a literal vs. non-literal. You went there on your own. I asked if it was morally ok for me to own slaves in the past but not today why is that not moral relativism.


Pretty much. Only i dont think im ignorant. I think he is wrong and i want him to explain his wrongness better.

But it dont matter much, so i give.

yea, i didnt mean you were actually ignorant, just going by his wording here: "Meh, I won't educate myself" in reference to you. sorry about that

I'll take that as my cue.

If by dismissive you mean my first response to him, then I guess I'm a bit more direct than most. I don't quite see what about

is particularily dismissive. If there's a more suave way of saying "sorry, I won't bother" - I'm all ears.

Personally, I think you lose the crowd when you say its not all that "complex" I dont see what this has to do with an argument being right or wrong.

Nothing, of course. I was commenting on the complexity of the argument simply to imply that both of us have very likely heard it countless times before, and that despite that, neither of us has apparently changed our mind regarding its merit. I infered from that, that he apparently thinks it's a valid argument. I further infered from that, that it's probably not very fruitful to pursue that particular tangent any further.

I agree, though, that I was doing a better job with Mightyboosh to kill any further discussion leading down that path right from the start.

fret,

I would like to hear in a nutshell some explanation of OT/NT exegisis re slavery not being applicable now.

My thoughts are incomplete on this.
I need to do more research and thinking on this one.

Your points are valid and I have the same queries personally.

Well, my PhD deals with Lamentations, so I'm no specialist on Pentateuch exegesis, so I'll keep it short.

- As far as I'm aware, there is no legal definition of slave in the OT. So we can only go by context (and evidence from surrounding cultures) in figuring out what עֶבֶד really means. That may or may not coincide with the meaning we give the term today, but it is very likely a broader sense.

- OP was prolly referencing the passages in Dtn that deal with this kind of stuff:

or (shortly after)

You will note that in all of this the point is driven home again and again that slaves are to be treated (relatively) well and this is explained by reference of themselves having been slaves under pharao.

- Now, there were no Israelites slaves under pharao. The entire prehistory of Israel as detailed in Gen-Dtn is a big projection backwards. There's a ****load of archaeological evidence for this. Perhaps the cutest is that Abrahm is talking about camels/dromedars but there is no archaelogical evidence of dromedars/camels in the levant prior to the iron age.

- Scholarship pretty unanimously places/times the writing of a major portion of Gen-Dtn to the babylonian exile.

Now just imagine yourself: You're assuming you're the chosen people. You just got your ass handed to you by the babylonians who not only overpowered you but also razed your capitol that you though inviolable. They then deported you to Babylon. Now you're sitting there. It makes a lot of sense to assume that they NOW come up with rules how slaves (note that they're talking about israelite slaves up there in the quotes) are supposed to be treated.

All of that is to say: Gen-Dtn is not a historical account, it's not some divine law that just dropped out of heaven. It's the product of theologizing of a people that just went through a major humanitarian/theological catastrophy (in fact, a majority of OT writings are placed around the exile - that event kicked off pretty much all of OT theologizing). As such, I assume it presents us with insights that the israelites had about themselves, their relationship with their god and their solutions to their existential crisis. The moral "laws" I extract from that are not to the tune of "Kill a Canaanean whenever you meet one" but rather "Heck, even a disenfranchised, powerless and subjugated person is a human being. Treat him with respect."

It's not a coincidence that Liberation Theology is usually very biblically grounded. Israelites were, for the most time of their existence, a playing ball for the power players in the region (hittites, assyrians, egyptians, babylonians, persians).

Oh, and why it's not applicable? Because it was never intended to be a legal framework about how to treat slaves.

So everything that is said in Leviticus should not be considered as a legal framework on how to live your lives? Or can we just pick and choose the part about slaves?

I echo this query.
not following what you said in post 84

Orthodox jews adhere to the complete list of rules of Leviticus. Don't see why I should (I'm sure someone could cite the relevant NT passages that make that a non-controversial statement). Or is every evangelical christian keeping different pots for milk and beef?

Apart from that: "pick and choose" is a very ... tendential way of putting my position. I'm taking a piece of writing that was composed with an agenda as a piece of writing that was composed with an agenda.

If you can't wrap your head around that there is more than just a dichotomy of "every word is holy" and "everything is just imagination of some scribes", then I really can't help you. But I've stated that a few times now; that should be sufficient.

English is not my first language so don't read too much into the use of pick and choose. But you made the argument that the passages about slavery are not to be considered as some legal framework. But in Leviticus they are written exactly like the other passages that Christians still consider part of their legal framework. Just asserting that the slavery passages are different is just avoiding the questions people are asking here.

I don't care about separating milk and beef and why people stopped doing that but slavery is a clear moral question and almost all Christians say that the bible is their moral authority.

Doubtful, as that would have been a controversial statement among the New Testament writers themselves.

As for moral relativism, I see nothing in Fretelöo's statements that implies it. Once we drop the idea that the laws of the Old Testament are divine mandates (which of course doesn't mean that they are not in some more attenuated sense divinely inspired), then it seems entirely reasonable to situate them within the context of their time, and to even view them as constituting an improvement on the status quo (if they were in fact an improvement). This is the case even if they explicitly permit slavery and other things that would be morally wrong to support today.

Isn't what you just wrote almost the definition of descriptive moral relativism. That it is incorrect to assume that the same moral or ethical frameworks are always in play in all historical and cultural circumstances. Which is something most Christians don't agree with.

I'm not sure what you mean by "descriptive moral relativism." If you mean that people have had different moral views at different times and places, I would imagine that this would be obvious to almost everyone, including most Christians. And you are correct that this is implied by my statement. If you mean that those different views actually determine whether an action or law was morally correct, then yes, most Christian would reject it. However, that is not an implication of my statement.

Of course it's relevant when your response was:

Because our having a concept of unalienable human rights doesn't make slavery wrong unless that's a system of morality that God wants for us to utilise.

Which is why I asked you why we couldn't use slavery now if we had enough support. Because I don't see any scripture where God says "Thou shalt not own slaves".

Because space travel isn't an issue of morality.

But since he gives us guidelines on how to treat our slaves, it seems like he could tell us not to have slaves instead. Unless keeping slaves is ok, of course.

And I think we can do without the attempts to patronise.

So when I asked you how Biblical slavery was different to modern conception of slavery, why didn't you tell me any of these meanings instead of referring to modern human rights?

We might have a different idea on what moral relativism is. And yours is probably right. But the key for my point is morals that change. It would of been ok for me to own a salve in the past but not today (i dont think there is biblical support for this and no one seems to want to show it... but anyhow). Things changed.

You can get rid of moral relativism, moral absolutism and moral objectivism all together and my criticism still stands. Even if not for him.

Atheists are often criticized for having morals which can change. Yet some of those vary critics will ignore the moral changes from Judaism to Christianity and within in Christainty itself.

The reality is if an atheists morals are flawed because they can change. If the shoe fits they need to wear the same one.

No you are fine and summed up what i was saying. No apologies necessary.

Well, for one, the passages I cited (if those are even teh ones OP was referring to) are from Dtn, not Lev. Different contexts deserve different treatment much like a shout "Fire" in a theatre performance elicits different responses than elsewhere.

I won't get into this much further as you're essentially asking me to provide the groundwork (and the consequent argument) that's usually covered in a one-semester university course and I simply have not the energy, time or interest in presenting all of that here. So we're stuck with my patronizing suggestion: Pick up a good introductory book on OT exegesis. You'll find many of your questions addressed there.

Touché, though once you get enough evidence together that the understanding of most passages in teh bible is controversial, the notion that there must be a clear, obvious and ONE correct understanding of it becomes less and less tenable. So it would provide at least circumstantial evidence for an approach to OT exegesis that is embracing "pick&choosery".

As for the last part - I did. You need to read more carefully.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that the OT HAS clear rules about slavery that were ment to be be understood as rules of slavery not only then but also now. I reject that notion. This is also why this won't get us anywhere.

Ok, well, Nr. 1: I don't level that criticism towards atheists.

Nr. 2: Your argument - as with the guy before you is premised on that the rules of the OT are to be understood literally. That a sentence saying means that you're legally obligated to set a slave free after 6 years, and that you're supposed to give him a food, clothing and some pocket change for him to get settled after.

I do not believe that is what this sentence is supposed to convey. If there's any moral law in that statement it's - as I've alluded before - "Treat everyone with respect, even if he's much lower in social/political/economic status than you, because remember where you came from". I don't see how that latter "law" has changed over the centuries and implies moral (or any other kind) of relativism.

The only relativism I'm "guilty" of is that I don't take a piece of writing with an agenda at face value. No one of us does that in every day life. We don't believe that the sky is as blue as in commercials because we understand what commercials are and what tehy intend. I'm doing the same with the OT - as I would also with the Gilgamesh Epos, the Armana Letters, Platons Dialogs, Thukydides' peloponnesian war etc. If you believe that the bible is a one-of-its-kind that can and should not be treated as a historical document, and approached with the same exegetical methods that are used for all other historical documents, then you're really not alone. JWs and a broad aliance of evangelicals will heartily agree with you. I dont.

If "read a textbook on OT exegesis" seems patronizing to you - well, I guess I can't change that. I do wonder, though, if I felt it was patronizing if I bugged someone with questions about nuclear physics and then got told "read a book". I suspect, I'd agree it to be a reasonable approach.

Ok

Ok.

I dont think the jubilee was for all salves, just the Hebrew ones. Could be wrong.


I wouldn't think it meant everyone. I also wouldn't consider owning anyone respectful no matter how you treat them.

And you already agreed with me owning a slave today would be morally wrong but not in the past.


Thats what has changed. If somehow its not moral relativism. Ok im wrong. Still dont know why.


I dont mind if you are patronizing. I would just rather have someone explain their view instead of telling me to go read a book. And maybe you have explained them and they are just over my head. But like i said it dont matter.

fret, it sounds like you are saying that the bible isnt the word of god? If so, why pay any attention to it at all, other than as a piece of literature?