z

Young Writers Society



The Bible Isn't Moral Part 1 (Slavery)

by Esion


The Bible Isn't Moral 

Part 1

Slavery 

The Bible is a vast book full of commands, statements, and laws that points toward a moral code. If God is perfect, then, his morals will also be perfect. We should see nothing immoral and no flaws in his judgement. I propose that we see the opposite throughout the Old and New Testament.

Before we can have a fruitful and productive discussion we have to define terms. What do I mean by moral? I define what's moral as that which has a positive impact on the well being of thinking agents. There are nuances, and I don't subscribe to the idea of absolute morals but objective morals. This to say that the morals are not written in stone and absolute, but open to refining and change. And these morals can be objectively shown to have a direct correlation to the well-being and the bettering of society. Morality is not relative to a culture, time, or people; morality can be clearly demonstrated and falsified. With that framework I think we can make a very strong case that the Bible is not moral.

Slavery is by definition immoral because it imposes control and force, and prohibits the well-being of people. It strips people of personal autonomy, opens the door to abuse, and creates a divided world where some people are inferior.

Slavery in the Bible was cruel and harsh, it wasn't a more humane version. In Exodus 21 the Bible states,

" When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

And in Leviticus 25 it says the following

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them."

This is a very obvious admission that slavery was allowed and regulated by God. There were a few types of slavery present in the Bible. There are some verses that only deal with the people of Israel which essentially all boils down to you can't own your fellow Jew forever. The Jewish male slaves had to be let go after six years. But, a female slave had different rules, and there were laws that could serve as loophole to keep them forever. (both female and male slaves)

But, with that aside I want to focus on these two verses. While there was a version of indentured servitude in the Bible, that was not the only thing that existed. The Bible clearly demonstrates that slavery of a similar fashion to what we know from modern history was endorsed. It says, "you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you...you may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever."how is that not like modern slavery?

Furthermore, you could beat your slave according to Exodus 21. If they didn't die in a few days, then it wasn't against the law of the Bible. I believe that is a terrible injustice. I think it shows the Bible isn't moral because what loving God would condone such behavior?

How the slaves were treated ultimately is an irrelevancy. If you own someone and you treat them like a prince, it is still wrong. People are not to be owned. Well-being is at it's best when people are free to choose and live how they desire.

We thrive and experience the best life when we are free and able to think. Slavery puts a physical and mental bondage on someone and prevents them from living well. Well-being is fundamentally what morality is about. What is best for us? That's the question we are attempting to answer when we ask what is moral. And, slavery is not best, it is not even close and it is the antithesis of well-being. No version of slavery, where someone is owned as property, is or ever could be moral in any world. It is by definition against the well-being of that person and the Bible clearly supports it.

Note: You are not logged in, but you can still leave a comment or review. Before it shows up, a moderator will need to approve your comment (this is only a safeguard against spambots). Leave your email if you would like to be notified when your message is approved.







Is this a review?


  

Comments


User avatar
25 Reviews

Points: 72
Reviews: 25

Donate
Thu May 24, 2018 7:23 pm
Murphy2493 wrote a review...



I think this Essay was well thought out. You stated your claim and explained why you felt that way. I do feel like you could have used verses in the New Testament (not sure which one cause I have only read bits and pieces). I just feel that might have made the argument stronger. I myself have a few issues with some of the things the bible says, such as how it says the woman really doesn't have any say so. But then I have to remember how long ago the bible was written.


Overall, I think you did a good job in your argument.




User avatar
1085 Reviews

Points: 90000
Reviews: 1085

Donate
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:54 am
View Likes
Mea wrote a review...



Hey there! I thought I'd drop by for a quick review today.

The Essay
1. You should cite your sources better. What translation of the Bible are you using? (this can be controversial, which is why it's important to say) You do put the book and the chapter, but what verses are you citing? This is just good practice when writing any argument.

2. Your argument isn't bad, but it wanders a lot - it doesn't feel like it has a carefully considered structure and your conclusion is a bit abrupt. You spend a lot of time establishing that slavery in the Bible was cruel, but then you say that how they're treated is irrelevant because slavery is still wrong. And I think you could use some of the time you spend arguing that slavery is wrong (since pretty much everyone reading your essay agrees that slavery is wrong) on examining the practice in its historical context and also considering reasons why it may have been permitted. Basically, try to anticipate the other side of the argument.

The Argument
In general, I disagree that permitting something is the same thing as endorsing it. As a kid, my parents put restrictions on the things I could watch and the websites I could go on on the Internet, but they would have been happier if I chose not to do those things at all. I think you could still try to make the argument that God endorsed it in the Bible (though I personally don't believe this is the case), but you need to do more work than just saying "well, he permitted it, therefore endorsed it."

Some things to consider (note this is from a framework of Christian beliefs; Jewish people may disagree):

1. The Mosaic law as given in the Old Testament was for the Jews and genuinely never intended to apply to everyone everywhere in the world at all times. Thus, it's not right to consider it God's definitive moral code, simply a moral code given by God at that time and place, a "lesser" law. As you say, morals are open to refinement and change in order to become more objective; the Mosaic law is an example of those morals before those changes.

God gave them a lesser law in the first place because they couldn't keep the higher law without falling into serious sin. The story of Moses and the Ten Commandments shows that originally, God tried to give them the same law established in the New Testament, but it just didn't work. I strongly believe that God tries to meet us where we're at and help us become better one step at a time rather than giving us everything all at once and watching us fail. For the Jewish people, this code was what they needed to keep them looking to God.

I don't know exactly why God chose to permit some forms of slavery among the Jews as part of this lesser law, but I suspect that slavery was so common among so many different civilizations back then that in fact, the restrictions on slavery would have actually made it more humane than it was among the Gentiles. You say it was harsh, and I'm sure it was, but do you know it was more harsh than what was common at the time?

2. When Christ came, the Mosaic law was fulfilled and a new law established. Christ's teachings as laid out in the New Testament are a higher law, intended for both the Gentiles and the Jews (so everyone in the world), and are the most definitive moral truths God has given us today. I'm sure you also have objections to parts of the New Testament, and I'd propose you focus on those rather than on an old moral code that Christians do not follow today.

Anyway, I'm not terribly interested in getting into a debate on the topic, but I did want to give this a review since you're probably looking for writing feedback as well. Sorry if this review was too harsh - it wasn't a bad essay at all. If you ever want to just debate this stuff rather than writing full-form essays and getting feedback, feel free to check out our Serious Discussion and Debate forum. Have a great day!




Esion says...


Thank so much for the review. I found it really insightful and helpful. I think I can support that God endorsed slavery. If you're parents gave you permission to go online to a website and regulate it, it seems like that is an endorsement to me. Perhaps they have other opinions but want you to learn for yourself, and while understandable in human relations I don't think the same excuse could apply to an omniscient God. If he knows everything and knew the world would go the way of abolishing slavery(well, mostly) ,why didn't he simply say, "thou shall not own another person as property"? I think it makes God look weak and almost as if he couldn't outlaw it completely.

I am not sure I made the argument that the Biblical slavery was the most cruel or inhumane, just one of many inhumane versions. Regardless, I believe the Bible permits or endorses the immoral act of slavery. Now, later on you say "I'm sure you also have objections to parts of the New Testament, and I'd propose you focus on those rather than on an old moral code that Christians do not follow today."


Sure, I have my objections to the New Testament as well and I can explain them. However, I think dismissing the Old Testament because in your view it only applies to Jews is dishonest. Your God is the same God of the Old Testament is he not? If so, then , why would he ever need to change anything? Isn't God unchanging? It seems strange to me that God laid down a law that needed some sort of update or new filter to see it through.

And if God said, "you may buy slaves from the nations around you" (Leviticus 25:44 ESV) is that not a moral pronouncement that buying slaves is okay? Yes, I did say that morals could be improved upon, but morals themselves are not relative. We may not have the complete and best morality and there are gray areas. I believe that is where we debate and discussion can resolve those and one can be objectively shown to be better for the well-being of a people.

Now with slavery, I think we can demonstrate that is always against a person's well-being. This right here gets the heart of my issue. I understand you disagree about my use of endorse, but we both agree it was permitted to happen. And, I would think we both agree there is support for the idea in the Old Testament. So if God allowed slavery, then why isn't it moral? And, if God did support any version of slavery, then how is the Bible any sort of moral guide?

Again, thanks for the review. I understand completely if you wish not to entertain this discussion any further. It's a touchy subject and can get people upset. I hope I did at least clear up some of the issues you raised. Or, in the very least, gave you some food for thought. Thanks!

-Evelyn



Mea says...


I'm glad the review was helpful!

Sure, I have my objections to the New Testament as well and I can explain them. However, I think dismissing the Old Testament because in your view it only applies to Jews is dishonest. Your God is the same God of the Old Testament is he not? If so, then , why would he ever need to change anything? Isn't God unchanging?

I can see why you would think this, so I thought I'd go ahead and address it quickly. Yes, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and this means that His moral precepts, the ones He is trying to teach us to live by, do not change. However, our ability to accept and live those precepts differs. If God were to always require everyone to live the fullest extent of His law, we would all be lost - we are so far from perfect it would be impossible. Instead, He teaches us line upon line, building on our ability and understanding until we can live like Him.

(For example, although we don't really know what law say, Adam, followed, I'm willing to bet it would be closer to the law Jesus taught than the Mosaic law. And the city of Enoch, which was so righteous that God took it up to heaven, would have definitely been living the higher law. The Mosaic law is very tied to its place and time - Christ specifically says His law replaces the Mosaic law in the New Testament.)

Honestly, I see why this is an argument against the Bible, that God seems to permit/endorse slavery in one iteration of His law, but it just doesn't really bother me, and I think that's because I don't actually believe that the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) is entirely God's full and complete and only Word. (I realize this is a controversial opinion among Christians. I'm not quite your typical Christian.) I believe that pretty much all of its writings were originally written through inspiration from God by many different people in many different places, and then they were all disparately collected over many, many years and imperfectly translated, leaving gaps. Plus, I think we really just don't know nearly enough about the cultures of the time to understand or guess at the rationale behind many of the aspects of the Law of Moses in particular. So I'm not really the person to debate with on the subject. :P

Thanks for the civil reply and the interesting discussion!



Random avatar

Points: 0
Reviews: 156

Donate
Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:12 pm
View Likes
KatjaDawn wrote a review...



Exodus 21:20-21 Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.


We live in a fallen world where sin is permitted to take place and we are given free will. Free will means we as people are capable of making our own decisions no matter how God feels about them. Recognizing that what we choose to do and what God wants us to do are separate is important to discuss this topic.

After careful consideration and further study on the topic, I'd like to add that there was a covenant between God and the Jews (before Jesus). This covenant was to separate God's people and included strict rules on what to eat, wear, how to handle situations with other people, etc. Even before Christ, it is evident that God was intending on creating a new covenant meant for everyone, not just the Jews. (As to the minor details on what changed vs what stayed the same, I wont discuss, but will focus more on the general topic of slavery, morality, and why what was isn't necessarily what is today).

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:


And when Jesus came, his sacrifice brought forth the new covenant between God and man. (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 10:29)

God very clearly separated the old ways from the new, through Jesus. In Exodus 21:23-25 it is said "eye for eye" "tooth for tooth" "hand for hand" and so on. But Jesus says in Matthew 5:38-39:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


I could go on with examples of the old vs new covenant, but I encourage you to research this for yourself. As to why slavery and stoning sinners, etc., was permitted in the old days, I can not answer. But we know that God made the laws for those of us who choose to be *immoral*.

1 Tomothy 1 8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine


And what does the bible tell us happens to those of us who suffer and go through hardships?

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”



Jesus taught us that he fulfilled the laws, rather than abolished them. And when he came, he taught us to love each other and not to judge. Though mosaic law called for stoning adulterers, he proclaimed "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". He fulfilled the law, brought forth the new covenant, and allowed every single on of us to be capable of repentance. Not even us Christians can say we know exactly why, what, and how. But we are armed with the knowledge given to us in the form of the scriptures. To say that the bible is not moral, is in a way, a willing admission to having never studied both the tanakh and the new testament. Jesus brought forth love, compassion, and understanding and wanted us to spread this. I hope my edited response is more helpful :)




Esion says...


Thanks for the review. Ultimately, I think your premise is wrong. I am not saying if man uses his free will to do evil that God endorsed it. Let me give an analogy that I think will help. Let's say your parents say you can go to the movies. Then, they go on to say what movie you can see and when you can see it. That is a direct endorsement from your parents to see that movie. In the same way God directly endorsed slavery. He gave specific parameters and said they may buy slaves from the nations around them. That is an endorsement of an action. That is different from someone using their free will. When God gives permission and endorses it, it no longer becomes a subject of free will but the morality of God. Sure they freely did it, but God gave them endorsement to do it. So would you at least agree that God endorsed slavery in the Bible?


Random avatar
KatjaDawn says...


Endorsement is defined as follows: "noun, an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something."

Is there any verse in the Bible where Jesus publicly proclaimed that his followers or anyone in general should enslave one another? Is there any verse that states that enslaving others is perfectly fine?

Since specific rules were given to prevent the ultimate mistreatment and potential murder of the enslaved, and they were to work for their "master" for a specified amount of time, and when they were to leave (should they have grown fond of their masters, they were allowed to willingly stay) they were to be gifted/payed for their servitude. I cited several passages above that show us that the laws given to us are/were intended for the "lawbreakers and rebels" and it is clear that in Mosaic times many of the given laws were intended to keep the people in these days from falling too deeply into sin. Slavery was a custom in mosaic times. God even freed his people from the Egyptians when they were enslaved. He clearly is not endorsing it.

Since Jesus came and died for us, he clearly showed us in his teaching that his intentions for us were to love and not to judge one another and to have faith in him, to "turn the other cheek" and show people that even when they are cruel we love them. He also very clearly showed us that what was permissible under mosaic law was no more (again, when the adulteress was brought to him). Just because something was at one point, does not mean it is today.

Even in your statement "When God gives permission (and endorses it)". The problem here is, he allows us to sin in general. Like, anything we as people want to do, we can do it. Yet, he does not endorse sinful behavior. Before Jesus he also allowed sin in the form of murder and adulterer to be punishable by death, but it is clear that these former laws on murder and adulterery have changed because now Jesus has given us the opportunity to cleanse ourselves and be free of sin through him.

We can not agree that God does or has ever endorsed slavery. To endorse something is to publicly support it. God does not support his creation to sin against each other. What is allowed now (and this is with the view that slavery rules only apply to mosaic times, as Jesus had already sacrificed himself) will be no more in the second coming, regardless.




When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.
— Eric Hoffer