How Evil it is that "Holy" Texts Did not Condemn Slavery
So-called Holy Texts have been exerting great influence on societies for millenniums and at the same time it is common knowledge/without an iota of doubt that human societies were way more cruel and barbaric in the past.
You can see all the barbarism from the old practices like slavery, conquest, incessant wars, feudalism, absolute monarchies, human sacrifice, child marriages, cannibalism, etc. Some of these practices like incessant wars, conquest, etc. persist to this day and some of the others are still practiced in different forms but the fact remains that things are not as barbaric as they used to be.
Things getting better just shows you that humans are getting more civilized, moral, and humane. And as humans are getting this better it is becoming clearer that the ancient so-called Holy Texts which served as a moral guide for mankind are actually very immoral, barbaric, and unfit for the modern world.
For example, their stand on slavery was an attempt at giving man morality that was better than what was obtainable at the time. While slavery was practiced freely and cruelly by many societies the Holy Texts sought to reduce the cruelty in the practice of slavery.
Example from the Bible:
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
_ Exodus 21 verse 20
Example from the Quran:
...do good to relatives, orphans, the needy, and to your slaves (those whom your right hands possess).
_Quran 4:36
Back then giving all these doctrines to reduce the cruelty of slavery can be considered moral because the doctrines were better than what was obtainable at the time. But in today's world, we can see that these doctrines are not good enough. They try to help the situation instead of solving the situation.
And as the highest standard of morality, the stand of the Holy Texts should have been the most objectively moral stand and not moral only when compared to what was obtainable back then but falling short when compared to the higher standards of today.
The highest and most objectively moral standard is simply that slavery is an evil practice that should be abolished. But these Texts never said so, instead, they gave guidelines on how to do an evil thing in a way some of it's evil impacts would not be felt.
It is just like giving a thief guidelines like, if you want to steal, only steal half of what your victim has, don't steal everything. Why give this kind of guideline instead of simply saying "Stealing is cruel, don't do it"?
It is like giving a rapist guidelines like when you rape, use the withdrawal method instead of simply saying "rape is cruel, don't do it". Or saying "While bullying your mates in school, don't break their bones, but you're free to give them flesh wounds". Why not just say "Bullying is cruel, don't do it?"
To see more clearly the crimes of these Texts, look at passages from the Bible giving guidelines on slavery:
Leviticus 25 (Buy non-Israelite slaves and have a field day) :
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Exodus 21 verse 7 (You can sell your daughter into slavery):
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,[b] 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.
1 Peter 2 verse 18 (Slaves submit to your masters including the harsh ones):
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
The one about selling your daughter to slavery is the most flabbergasting one.
We of the modern era might not understand how cruel slavery as a practice must have been, so here are some paragraphs to remind you:
How Evil Slavery Was
In the world today, with all the modern laws, law enforcement, and civilization we still see people do really cruel things to their maids and helps. The news is awash with people pouring acid, hot water, flogging, beating their maids, and helps for mistakes made during errands. They even do these things to their kids, stepkids, relatives, etc.
If they can do this in today's world then imagine what they would have done to slaves who are viewed as their property! Imagine what humans must've been doing to slaves in the past. All the ruthlessness and drunkenness that comes with power over your fellow man was exercised all on slaves.
The world must have been like heaven for pedophiles and rapists. Take a second to imagine it. All the rape and pedophilia going on in the world today even with all the laws and civilization how much more in the past when people owned people the same way you own your phone?
Your slave could give birth to children and they'll be yours to do whatever you want to do at whatever age you decide.
We also know about how many people have cruel sexual preferences. People get pleasure from some extreme BDSM stuff, flogging and causing pain to their sex partners. Take another second to imagine how great the world would have been for these people back when they could own people.
In the face of all these, your Holy Texts never thought to say owning people is bad and shouldn't be practiced.
The Usual Excuses
These are some of the excuses defenders of the Texts usually come up with in Defence of the Texts
1. God Did Not Want to Tell Them to Stop because He Knows They Would not Stop
This still does not excuse the fact that, according to the Texts, he never for once said it was a bad thing. He never proscribes it even once. It would have been better if he proscribed it and still gave those guidelines.
And if you're saying God does not proscribe things he thinks cannot be stopped then what do you say about all the other things proscribed like adultery, lying, stealing, keeping the Sabbath day holy, etc.? Do they seem like things that could be stopped?
But clearly these Texts were not written or inspired by any God. They were just written by men applying their own reason and morality and they couldn't aspire to any higher moral standards than this. They thought ending slavery was impossible due to the limitations of their imagination. Slavery was as old as mankind, they never thought it was possible to end it.
2. It Was the Old Testament
This is the excuse mostly given by Bible believers. They explain that it was the old laws and many of them no longer apply because of Jesus. There's no need to go into details about how Jesus affects it according to them because the important thing is that they do not deny it was once the law.
The fact that it was once the law means their God once thought that was the right way to do things/it was worthy to be practiced.
Conclusion
No one can deny slavery was evil and with these verses, we can see that the so-called Holy Texts condoned it and even gave guidelines on how to do it. This exposes the immorality and barbarism of the so-called Holy Texts, what reason is there to still have any regard for these books?
The End.
Hi there, my novella Professor Otagburuagu just got published. It promises to be thoroughly entertaining and intellectually stimulating. Written by myself and illustrated by Scandinavian artist @katharsisdrill. You can get it from me for just 4 HBD.
You can also order the hard copy from anywhere in the world via this link: https://katharsisdrill.art/the-katharsisdrill-shop/professor-otagburuagu/
I'm counting on your patronage, thank you!
We live in a different epoch where what was put out on these Holy texts is mostly irrelevant nowadays simply because we're living in a different age. I often see civilization as bringing order out of chaos. Chaos will always be on the background because it is part of human nature. But this is definitely not an excuse to be chaotic. Part of us will always behave like an animal but the other part is more than an animal, that's the part we should learn how to be attuned to instead of listening to the animal inside us.
Couldn't agree more!
Lol. You literally were writing how women should be promiscuous, ironic.
How is it ironic? My upholding morality makes you think it is ironic because you think morality is supposed to condemn casual sex, but there is no objective reason why casual sex is bad. Casual sex is perfectly moral as long as it is carried out safely with no disease spread and birthing of children that can't be cared for.
If you have a reason why you think casual sex is immoral let me hear it and I'd destroy whatever that is with clear, simple, superior logic.
Because casual sex includes all those risks.
Even animals have grace, mercy, self sacrifice, charity, friendship and family. Even insects.
Civilization comes with two things (clarity and confusion). The one and only way to command the advantages of civilization is by "consciousness". Consciousness is the act of knowing who you are, at that point you will be operating in the technology of discernment. Yeah, which finally helps you to enjoy the goodness of civilization. People are often filled with the illusion of civilization being the solution. It should be known that civilization also comes with some negativity.
The holy text should never be condemned, please. Your contributions are full of reality, so never come to dispute your stated facts. Thanks
Shalom.
This is for you @takhar
Both of the excuses here are flawed. Of course an eternal God knows what will happen and the Old Testament / New Testament thing doesn't add up. It is one story.
The question to me here is then why would the God who created the heaven and earth put up with man who is sinful all the time?
Right. And this is what religions are filled up with. Flaws and things that don't add up while saying these things are from a perfect God.
You're confusing religion with religious texts, both of which suffer from the same flaws all humanity is striken with but both of which have proven themselves invaluable especially in challenging times, to discard a bedrock of civilization as 'incoherent' or nonsense only betrays your own arrogance.
God doesn't put up, to suggest that God doesn't tolerate man because some men sin is ridiculous. You're here to redeem yourself as better than your lessers and to help those who seek like you.
Men continue to sin and God could have started over, but why not? My question is "why" and shouldn't imply intolerance but the opposite.
Imagine asking why is god tolerating man, and then denying that you even asked that, only to ask why didn't god start over, implying that god messed up.
It would be kind to propose an answer.
For who? Would you like me to accept your premise of an intolerant and mistaken All Knowing, All Present God just so the contradiction your question is built on is validated, because obviously you care neither for Logic nor for Truth as you pretend that what I said is false or wrong without even being able to qualify how and why my answer wasn't good enough? The Principle of NonContradiction and basic logic proposes that Two Opposing Statements of Fact cannot be both true at once, so then, how can an All Knowing Being make mistakes, or how can an All Accepting and Loving God SMITE those who err and sin?
Yet they remain... In all my retarded state, I would have to say the all knowing has a purpose for keeping them around.
What if it doesn't?
Unfortunately no amount of explaining will suffice such a question whose entire premise you can't even accept or seemingly can see that you made, such imbecilic retardation is terminal, not even god can penetrate into such a dim mind. Hopefully you get over said retardation.
The immoral texts that served as a moral guide for humanity as humanity keeps getting better, are immoral texts that are unfit for the modern world which was literally guided by them. This is as retarded as your "women and men are social concepts":
https://ecency.com/hive-122315/@nevies/the-luckiest-creature-in-the
Lol. Dude! If someone is at 2 trying to get to 10 and something helps them get to 6 but can't take them any further than 6 isn't the person not supposed to seek something better that can take them to 10 after thanking the previous thing for taking them to 6?
That's the thing with the Texts, morality was so bad, it was at 1, in the case of slavery the Texts helped to ameliorate the pains but that was all it did. Mankind still needed for the pains to be gone not just ameliorated and the Texts can't do that so dropping the texts and following better and more humane theories that can take away slavery completely is important.
After giving credit to the Texts for moving us forward we have to admit it's limitations. Don't you agree? Except you think simply ameliorating the pain of slavery was enough even though stopping slavery was possible.
There are more people enslaved now than during the slave trade. I'm sure that's "clear sign" morality advanced, but sure, slavery was stopped, but clearly religion only takes us to 6.
Interestingly enough Jefferson Davis who was the president of the Confederate States during the US civil war made appeals to the Bible to justify the continuation of slavery in the South. It resonated deeply with a culture that happened to be deeply Christian and deeply versed in the Bible.
Islam is the same in that slavery is not condemned. It's acceptable to have slaves in Islam if you take the Koran literally.
Now whether most Christians or Muslims in the 21st century believe in slavery or not is a different story, but that slavery is not condemned in either the Bible or the Koran is not debatable.
Right. That the Bible was used by christians to justify slavery must have delayed abolition for at least a hundred years. It's a shame anyone still holds the Bible in high regard.
I agree, it is one of those shameful periods of history that should not be forgotten, and I too don't know why the Bible is still so highly regarded.
I just finished reading a bio of Jefferson Davis and was astounded at how in a Biblical culture his arguments had a logic to them. If God is ok with slavery and the Biblical worldview is true, and if the economics of the antebellum south relied on slavery, then it was not only an acceptable practice it was a Godly one.
Of course I don't subscribe to his arguments, but it is interesting to read history and try to get into the context of the time.
At any rate, thanks for the write up and thanks for the reply.
If you still need to keep the Levitical law, then there would be no need for Jesus Christ to step in. The law was put in place to show you your sin and inability.
God used slavery at times much like we use prison today, to allow man to be punished. Ezekiel 38,39; Isaiah 49; The book of Jeremiah Is another instance of God doing this, also the book of judges where God was judging his people, yeah.
All in all, the only contribution I can make here is to keep to the standard of the New testament. Love the Lord, your God. Then love your neighbor as you love yourself. Receive the holy spirit.
Shalom
Alright, but what do you say about the fact the Bible allowed slavery as a general practice, not only as punishment?