Is religion good for a country?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

That's odd. I was under the impression that Christianity played a very significant role in abolishing slavery in America. Huh?

Christians who were good at ignoring Exodus 21. Just like today.

Agreed. One of the most strange events in the Bible is when God immediately implements slavery among the Israelites, after freeing them from generations of Egyptian slavery. You would think God and the Israelites would have been disgusted by the practice of slavery, but no, it turns out God is totally pro-slavery.

[hauslern]

Remember when Trump was asked if he ever asked for forgiveness? His response was "I don't know about that."

[Res Ipsa]

Judeo-Christian values like slavery did make it into the bedrock of American government. Feels like we've become a great country in spite of some Judeo-Christian values.

That's odd. I was under the impression that Christianity played a very significant role in abolishing slavery in America. Huh?

Hey Ceebs, just to follow up on this, here's a report commissioned by Southern Baptists Theological Seminary of it's history with respect to slavery. This isn't critical race theory -- it's an honest attempt understand an acknowledge a dark period in its history. in my opinion, that's a good thing. If we sanitize our history, it is impossible to learn from mistakes.

https://cf.sbts.edu/sbts2023/uploads/20 ... ort-v4.pdf

[I Have Questions]

Christians who were good at ignoring Exodus 21. Just like today.

Agreed. One of the most strange events in the Bible is when God immediately implements slavery among the Israelites, after freeing them from generations of Egyptian slavery. You would think God and the Israelites would have been disgusted by the practice of slavery, but no, it turns out God is totally pro-slavery.

The God of the Christian Bible:
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV


From Exodus 21.

[huckelberry]

That's odd. I was under the impression that Christianity played a very significant role in abolishing slavery in America. Huh?

Hey Ceebs, just to follow up on this, here's a report commissioned by Southern Baptists Theological Seminary of it's history with respect to slavery. This isn't critical race theory -- it's an honest attempt understand an acknowledge a dark period in its history. in my opinion, that's a good thing. If we sanitize our history, it is impossible to learn from mistakes.

https://cf.sbts.edu/sbts2023/uploads/20 ... ort-v4.pdf

Res Ipsa , I have only perused some of the lengthy article. I was struck by this little piece from early 1960s

An attorney and
Sunday School teacher in another Southern Baptist church
in Montgomery wrote McCall calling for his resignation:
“We know Martin Luther King for what he is, and how you,
as president of this institution could permit such a racist agi-
tator to appear before your student body is beyond me. The
thing that disturbs us most is the fact that after his speech,
more than 250 students under your supervision signed a pe-
tition calling upon the mayor of Louisville to desegregate its
restaurants, in honor of this agitator.

I was struck by this early usage of the reverse racist charge which is popular to this day

[sock puppet]

To the thread title question, I think there was a time when religion served a purpose. There were gaps in society that religion and a 'fear of God' filled. Those gaps have been shrinking to the extent that the tipping point has been crossed. I think religion--as distinguished from mere belief--has become a deleterious type of institution in modern society of the developed countries.

[huckelberry]

Some comments here about slavery seem to be half suggesting that it was the Bible and Christianity which brought the world the institution of slavery. Obviously absurd as slavery was widespread all about the world millennia before the Bible. Yet the Bible just accepts that with various modifications when we would expect and hope it to advocate the abolition of slavery. We might hope that the portions in the Bible pointing away from slavery held more sway. Why does the phase "do unto others as you would have them do to you" not settle the subject?

Money of course is the reason it did not settle the subject. Americans found slaves for sale in Africa and found that they could be very profitably used in America. Money has strong ways to shape the influence religion has on a society.

[ceeboo]

Christians who were good at ignoring Exodus 21. Just like today.

Agreed. One of the most strange events in the Bible is when God immediately implements slavery among the Israelites, after freeing them from generations of Egyptian slavery. You would think God and the Israelites would have been disgusted by the practice of slavery, but no, it turns out God is totally pro-slavery.

Like many difficult topics surrounding the Bible. slavery is surely one of them. To discuss such a topic would require time, humility, understanding of time/place/circumstance, as well as context.

Picking out a single verse from a library of scripture spanning thousands of years, is problematic. In addition, trotting out a single verse in an attempt to be critical (while fair in my opinion) can't be replied to in a similar way - trotting out a single verse as a reply. To reply to such troubling, challenging and jarring topics (like slavery in the Bible) requires a much longer reply that must consist of lengthy explanations around historical context, norms, existing realities, etc,

Having said that, I wanted to offer a few words from my personal perspective. These are just my views, and, given the topic, they will not be as comprehensive as they ought to be. You need to agree with any of them.

Bond - While I am fairly certain that there are modern Christians who are good at ignoring Exodus 21 (as well as other passages), I would suggest that there are also many Christians (past and modern) that have deeply wrestled with some of the these more troubling and quite jarring passages.

Everybody Wang Chung - Your suggestion about God being totally pro-slavery (one which seems to be repeated quite a bit - especially recently among some of folks dwelling in the secular/atheist camp - Sam Harris, Cosmic Skeptic, Dawkins, etc) is indeed something I don't think Christians should run away from an/or hand-wave off. I think Christians ought to be able to discuss everything in the Bible and do so honestly, humbly, and accurately.

Slavery was a part of life everywhere during Old Testament time. It was common and accepted everywhere.

Old Testament laws were given for Israel at a particular time in history to a specific people and place. These laws had a built-in obsolescence (Forn example" Jeremiah 31 talks about a new convent coming - there is an awareness that this isn't the end of the story) - Many of the Old Testament laws are addressing specific situations that arise within the historical context of the time.

Some of the laws use words like "if or "when" - Meaning, obviously these laws are not approving these things, they were to address a specific situation that already existed and that the people were dealing with.

Throughout the Bible, God gives instructions on how people ought to live under a fallen structure, like slavery. Such instruction does not suggest approval of the existing structure. Telling people what to do in a circumstance does not mean that there is approval for the circumstance itself.

The Old Testament made significant improvements on slavery/servanthood in the ancient Near-East. Ancient slavery/servanthood was not the same as the Trans-Atlantic slavery that occurred between the 15th and 19th centuries (perhaps the most despicable forms of slavery to ever exist) - This was race based chattel slavery - meaning that the slave was the legal property of the master - Race based, arguing that one race was superior to another. Yes, all slavery is bad but I would suggest that this flavor is the worst flavor. This is not the same slavery (despite what people may say) as what is found in the Old Testament.

Old Testament slavery: The general foundation for slavery/servanthood was economic. Very few safety nets existed. If you couldn't pay off your debts, this was one way you could survive. Jay Sklar - Old Testament Scholar on Leviticus puts it this way - "In the ancient Near East in general and in the Bible in particular, debt was commonly the reason for entering into servitude".

The Mosaic Law - protection of slaves from abuse by their masters is found nowhere else in the entire exiting main body of ancient Near Eastern legislation.

Lastly: Genesis 1 made a huge contribution to human equality through the doctrine of the imago Dei - Image of God. The understanding that everyone is created in the image of God had significant impact of how slaves/servants were treated in the ancient past (Under Biblical teaching), and it also played a very significant role (many centuries later) with abolishing slavery in the West.

[Morley]

The Mosaic Law - protection of slaves from abuse by their masters is found nowhere else in the entire exiting main body of ancient Near Eastern legislation.

Ceeboo, generally speaking, there were legal codes protecting the (admittedly limited) rights of slaves anywhere the institution existed. This was particularly true in ancient Egypt. Even within the narrow time and geographical constraints of the 'ancient Near East' that you impose, your assertion still isn't true. Hammurabi's Code and the Code of Nesilim both laid out protections for slaves.

Mosaic Law was not some revolutionary thing that was more advanced than the rules that governed other cultures in the the region--let alone those that existed in other civilizations in the wider world.

[Marcus]

Agreed. One of the most strange events in the Bible is when God immediately implements slavery among the Israelites, after freeing them from generations of Egyptian slavery. You would think God and the Israelites would have been disgusted by the practice of slavery, but no, it turns out God is totally pro-slavery.

Like many difficult topics surrounding the Bible. slavery is surely one of them. To discuss such a topic would require time, humility, understanding of time/place/circumstance, as well as context.

Picking out a single verse from a library of scripture spanning thousands of years, is problematic. In addition, trotting out a single verse in an attempt to be critical (while fair in my opinion) can't be replied to in a similar way - trotting out a single verse as a reply. To reply to such troubling, challenging and jarring topics (like slavery in the Bible) requires a much longer reply that must consist of lengthy explanations around historical context, norms, existing realities, etc,

Having said that, I wanted to offer a few words from my personal perspective. These are just my views, and, given the topic, they will not be as comprehensive as they ought to be. You need to agree with any of them.

Bond - While I am fairly certain that there are modern Christians who are good at ignoring Exodus 21 (as well as other passages), I would suggest that there are also many Christians (past and modern) that have deeply wrestled with some of the these more troubling and quite jarring passages.

Everybody Wang Chung - Your suggestion about God being totally pro-slavery (one which seems to be repeated quite a bit - especially recently among some of folks dwelling in the secular/atheist camp - Sam Harris, Cosmic Skeptic, Dawkins, etc) is indeed something I don't think Christians should run away from an/or hand-wave off. I think Christians ought to be able to discuss everything in the Bible and do so honestly, humbly, and accurately.

Slavery was a part of life everywhere during Old Testament time. It was common and accepted everywhere.

Old Testament laws were given for Israel at a particular time in history to a specific people and place. These laws had a built-in obsolescence (Forn example" Jeremiah 31 talks about a new convent coming - there is an awareness that this isn't the end of the story) - Many of the Old Testament laws are addressing specific situations that arise within the historical context of the time.

Some of the laws use words like "if or "when" - Meaning, obviously these laws are not approving these things, they were to address a specific situation that already existed and that the people were dealing with.

Throughout the Bible, God gives instructions on how people ought to live under a fallen structure, like slavery. Such instruction does not suggest approval of the existing structure. Telling people what to do in a circumstance does not mean that there is approval for the circumstance itself.

The Old Testament made significant improvements on slavery/servanthood in the ancient Near-East. Ancient slavery/servanthood was not the same as the Trans-Atlantic slavery that occurred between the 15th and 19th centuries (perhaps the most despicable forms of slavery to ever exist) - This was race based chattel slavery - meaning that the slave was the legal property of the master - Race based, arguing that one race was superior to another. Yes, all slavery is bad but I would suggest that this flavor is the worst flavor. This is not the same slavery (despite what people may say) as what is found in the Old Testament.

Old Testament slavery: The general foundation for slavery/servanthood was economic. Very few safety nets existed. If you couldn't pay off your debts, this was one way you could survive. Jay Sklar - Old Testament Scholar on Leviticus puts it this way - "In the ancient Near East in general and in the Bible in particular, debt was commonly the reason for entering into servitude".

The Mosaic Law - protection of slaves from abuse by their masters is found nowhere else in the entire exiting main body of ancient Near Eastern legislation.

Lastly: Genesis 1 made a huge contribution to human equality through the doctrine of the imago Dei - Image of God. The understanding that everyone is created in the image of God had significant impact of how slaves/servants were treated in the ancient past (Under Biblical teaching), and it also played a very significant role (many centuries later) with abolishing slavery in the West.

This is an interesting evolution from some previous comments about the Bible, such as:

Can you expand a bit on what you mean by saying the Bible is the Word of God? For instance, does that mean everything in it is correct, and believers in it should be complying with all its messages?

...Does a Bible believing Christain get to pick and choose what Scripture teaches based on what they like/prefer and reject what they don't? No, this is a common problem in modern Christianity. Christians need to accept all of it or none of it, in my opinion. Some of it can be very uncomfortable and unpopular...

Of course, 'accepting all of it' can be qualified and the post from this thread goes a long way toward explaining how that can be done.

It still feels problematic, though, to say things like "...Telling people what to do in a circumstance does not mean that there is approval for the circumstance itself..." when many of the solutions given are not any more acceptable in a moral sense than the circumstance is.

Also, the argument that laws have a built-in obsolescence has an eerie similarity to the Mormon argument that the current prophet's take on something supersedes a past prophet's words. It seems to cater most to a human fallibility of those who say they represent god.