The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery Pt. 2

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery
Rom 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God.

Atheistic Assertions:
1) Morality: simply acting with the intention to minimize harm. To minimize unnecessary harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral
2) Endorsement: in support of
3) Jesus Christ supported the Old Testament. This is relevant because the Old Testament endorses and encourages slavery

Response:

Due to the inherent complexity of this argument, I will divide my response into three main categories: the argument of definitions, the argument of contextualization, and, what would be considered, the refutation of your argument.

When it comes to definitions, it is imperative to not only be correct in our affirmation, but to define these words in such a way that they could be applied in our context with homogeneous application.

The three crucial definitions are Morality, Endorsement, and Slavery. You defined them as follows:

Morality: simply acting with the intention to minimize harm. To minimize unnecessary harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral

Endorsement: in support of

Slavery: is immoral because it causes harm to another {without consent}

First, I will contend that your definition of Morality is insufficient because the base principle is “intent of minimizing harm”. The contention is derived from two basic principles. First, you are affirming that our improvement to society comes as the hands of lesser evils, which by-passes the necessity of any good actions; or that good actions are actions that are lesser evils – good being inherently evil. Either way, you do not uphold inherent “good”, but only gradations of evil. Secondly, as I did, you failed to apply a definition as to why your morality would have any objective validity. If you cannot prove why any other person should ratify your beliefs then you strike down the whole discussion in itself; at least in its absolutist form. I do not intend to incorporate a debate here in itself, but adequate definitions are required.

 Next, the definition of endorsement, and further how you apply it in your argument, is both invalid. To support or advocate something is not at all the same to have a level of permissibility for it. As an example we could use the following side-by-side comparison:

“If you go to the store, please get a gallon of milk.”

or

“When you go to the store, please get a gallon of milk.”

What is the main difference between these two ideas? The level of permissibility. The term “if” designates permissibility in going to the store, while the term “when” only allow permissibility as to “what time” you go to the store and does not question if you are going to the store – you are assumed in going. Thus, my argument that the Bible does not condone slavery is correct because “if” allows for permissibility. Your mistake when you assert a “When” ideology over the stated “If” (Exodus 21:2).

And lastly, I will contend the loose definition of slavery. The problem is that you assume that all slavery is immoral, or at least it should be. However, slavery, in some forms, is still in use in America today and acceptable; we could argue the necessity or inherent barrier of debt slavery or wage slavery. Are these also immoral under your definition? My assumed definition of slavery, when I opposed your statements, was the grotesque extremities and violations of morality that I underlined when I defined love. If slavery, in its form, violates the ethical and meta-ethical definitions that I had provided, then I would assume it to be immoral, if not, then we would assume it to be moral – that is the whole point in providing definitions.

This next piece will be used to contextualize my previous argument and assert my desired implications. I am not rewriting my previous statements, but will provide a more clear application to its uses and why it still stands superior.

When we began our discussion, I established that the teachings of Jesus Christ are foundational to our faith, in both the New and Old Testament doctrines. You rightly recognized his authority in the Old Testament by quoting Matt 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”, however, again, you misunderstand a very important implication. Jesus Christ did not come to preach the Law, but to fulfill the law. What is the difference? Christians do not uphold a majority of the Jewish or Mosaic Laws because they were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. For example, we do not follow the Levitical laws which include Temple ceremonies, animal sacrifices, priesthood authorities, etc. So first in our understanding, there is a difference between Mosaic Laws and Christians obeying of those laws; this distinction should be kept.

After, you quoted extensively from Exodus concerning the Slave laws. The slave laws are also found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and I will be using the entirety of the slave laws to prove its morality.

The argument of a slave should be broken down into three main points: slaves when they are received, slaves when they are under their master’s rule, and slaves when they are released.

First, slavery was introduced under several basic conditions. You could sell yourself as a slave either because you had nothing (you were poor), or because of debt settlement; war was not a major income of slaves. A slave can only be bought, they cannot be stolen – that is a capital offense – and there is no requirement to own slaves; it is optional. If slaves are bought and have a family (including wives and children), they must be kept together; you cannot separate slave families. In other words, your characterizing of inducting slaves is not proportionate to actuality.

The life of the slave, in agreement to my prior point regarding your remarks, is equally out of proportion. If you read the complete extent of the laws, you will understand the full rights of the slaves and the restrictions of their masters. The slave masters had capital offenses because they were still governed by the Ten Commandments and other Jewish laws; there was no partiality under the laws because both, free and slave, were governed by the same laws. Even the extent of marriage and punishment of the slaves were of equal value. It was not uncommon in their day to choose the husband of their daughters, so it was equal that slave daughters could be chosen a husband (punishment was dealt in a similar fashion). The only arguable extent that the slaves were different from their free counter-parts was forced labor. But of course this would revisit my prior argument of debt and wage slavery – is forced labor inherently evil?

And lastly, the release of the slaves. Every slave was required to be released upon the seventh year without compensation; with their whole family if this slave had a family. Further, you could not just release them, but were required to give them food and livestock when they left; you couldn’t just “kick’em to the curb”. Another interesting fact is that people were not required to return runaway slaves; if they got away from their former masters and were found, they were essentially free without hassle. Alternatively, slaves could, if they wanted to, commit themselves as slaves for life to their owner – interesting to note, if your assumption that slavery was such an abominable act of injustice why would slaves ever want to remain with their masters?

So what is slavery? Slavery is many things, and you have picked the lowest denominator and said this is what the Bible is. If anything could be said, the Bible has put forth the highest moral treatment of slaves that has ever existed in human history. Even in later times when the wealthy would own doctors (they didn’t have medical hospitals) were slaves (like Luke). Because the title of slave was attributed to them, it did not mean they didn’t hold a place of honour or dignity in the area they practiced. Of course, there are bad masters and acts of immorality to slaves, but equally there are bad governments and brutalized civilians. Should we abolish them too? If you wage war against the term slavery, you will undoubtedly be required to answer to the Butler or Maid. What about debt slavery or wage slavery? You may declare it immoral, but through the eyes of the people it was not always.

In the finality of this response I will make one last assertion. This is sort of back tracking, however, I will revisit my ethical and meta-ethical arguments through Jesus Christ. When I spoke that the Biblical doctrines have always spoke upon human equality I used Christian men as examples and Christ as my definition. You agreed to Christ’s authority upon the Old Testament, but do not advocate His authority in its interpretation. The Jews were required to uphold the Mosaic laws in their act towards their Slaves, so are we, in Christ’s fulfillment of the laws, required to uphold the Old Testament as Christ states in the New Testament:

“And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Luke 10:25-28”

The entirety of my definitions, of Biblical equality and love as stated in my previous remarks, are upheld because Christ’s authority is still commended – His commands still hold to what our actions are to be. If Slavery is defined and upheld under actions of Love, then it is not immoral. If you are permitted to have slaves and treat them under the sole definitions of Biblical doctrine then it is not immoral because, as you stated, “they are truly beautiful passages that characterized the virtues of Christian obedience.”