Theism.net
Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Meet Ed
Ed has much to say. Many of his concerns were already answered in my debate with Temy Beal (http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/04jordan.htm). What was not addressed there is included here. E-mail Ed for copies of his correspondence with Gary Habermas referenced in this text under “Habby.”
From: "ed babinski" ed.babinski@furman.edu
Date: Thu,
Subject: Re: Recent Mail
To: Jordan
Cc: slocks@globalnet.co.uk
Ed: So you're saying you'd rather be a literal slave in the Old
South than a modern day "wage slave?" To
each his own. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't. As for the
Bible's teachings on slavery, you do know that it split the greatest
theological minds in
Ed: G. Z.,
Please pardon me, I misread what you wrote below. You were saying that you
didn't see much difference between today’s' "wage slaves" and slavery
in NEW TESTAMENT times. However, you should consider Jesus's depiction of slavery in that day and age in a
parable in which he said "the slave who knew his master's will and did not
do it, was beaten with many stripes." I'll take today's "wage
slavery" over that.
Throughout the Bible slavery is as cheerfully and leniently assumed as are
royalty, poverty, and female submission to males. In the English Bible there is
frequent mention, especially in the parables of Jesus, to “servants.” The Greek
word is generally “slaves.” Jesus talks about them as coolly as we talk about
our housemaids or nurses. Naturally, he would say that we must love them; we
must love all men. But there is not a syllable of condemnation of the
institution of slavery. According to Jesus
“fornication” is a shuddering thing; but the slavery of fifty or sixty million
human beings is not a matter for strong language.
- Joseph McCabe, “Christianity and Slavery,” The Story of Religious
Controversy, Chapter XIX
THE BIBLE AND SLAVERY
The Bible says that all the patriarchs had slaves. Abraham, “the friend of
God,” and “the father of the faithful,” bought slaves from
household Sarah was set over the slave, Hagar. After Hagar ran away the angel
told her, “return to your mistress and submit to
her.” (Gen. 16:9)
The Bible even depicts the “Lord” making his own ministers slaveholders.
Numbers, chapter 31, says that the Hebrews slew all the Midianites
with the exception of Midianite female virgins whom
the Hebrews “kept for themselves...Now the booty that remained from the spoil,
which the [Hebrew] men of war had plundered included...16,000 human beings
[i.e., the female virgins] from whom the Lord’s tribute was 32 persons. And
Moses gave the tribute which was the Lord’s offering to Eleazar
the priest, just as the Lord had commanded Moses...And from the sons of
Israel’s half, Moses took one out of every fifty, both of man [i.e., the female
virgins] and animals, and gave them to the Levites [the priestly tribe]...just
as the Lord had commanded Moses.”
At God’s command Joshua took slaves (Josh
thy neighbor’s wife, or his male slave, or his female slave.” Exodus 20:17]
How long must a person remain enslaved? Genesis, chapter nine, says that Noah
laid a curse on one of his sons’ sons making him [and his children’s children]
“a slave of slaves…forever.” And Leviticus 25:44-46, says, “You may acquire
male and female slaves from the nations that are around you. Then too, out of
the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among
you...they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your
sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever [i.e., the slave’s children
would be born into slavery along with their children’s children, forever].” So,
slaves acquired from “foreign” nations could be treated as
“possessions...forever;” also, enemies taken in war. Moreover, the second Psalm
in the Bible (which scholars believe was sung at the coronation of Hebrew
kings) proclaims, “Ask of me [the Lord], and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance [as slaves], and the uttermost parts of
the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them
with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces
like a potter’s vessel.”
There were a few exceptions to “everlasting slavery.” If the slave was a Hebrew
owned by a fellow Hebrew the master allegedly had to offer him his freedom
after “seven years.” Though there is not a single penalty mentioned in the
Bible should the master detain his slave longer than that period or refuse to
offer him his freedom. Neither does such an offer appear to apply to female
slaves. Furthermore, if a Hebrew slave chose to remain with his master after
being offered his freedom, then the “Lord” told his people to “bore holes in
the ears” of that slave to mark him as his master’s possession “forever.” So
you had better speak up clearly and without hesitation the first time your
master offered you your freedom because there was no Biblical provision for
changing your mind at a later date. Complicating such decisions was the fact
that masters often gave
their slaves wives so they could produce children, yet the wife and children
remained the master’s “possessions.” (Exodus 21:4-6)
The Bible also apparently allowed for a creditor to enslave his debtor or his
debtor’s children for the redemption of the debt (2 Kings 4:1); and children
could be sold into slavery by their parents (Exodus 21:7; Isaiah 50:1). So sayeth “the word of the Lord.”
How much punishment could a master employ to discipline their slaves and ensure
their obedience? The Bible tells us that a master may beat his slave within an
inch of the slave’s life or within “a day or two” of their life: “If a man
strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall
be punished. If, however, the slave survives a day or two (before dying), no
vengeance shall be taken; for the slave is his master’s money.” (Ex. 21:20-21)
In line with such pearls of wisdom an early Christian Council, The Council of
Elvira (c. 305), prescribed that any Christian mistress who beat her slave to
death without premeditation was merely to be punished with five years of
penance. 1 Peter 2:18-20 teaches that the Christian who is a slave
should “patiently endure” even harsh unjust punishments in order to “find favor
with God.”
Let’s sum up. According to the Bible, anyone who has enough money to buy
another human being is “worthy of all honor” (1 Tim. 6:1) in the eyes of the
one who has been purchased. Secondly, slaves should seek to fulfill the “will
of God” by obediently serving their masters (Eph. 6:5-6). And
thirdly, slaves who endured “suffering” (including “unjust suffering”) were
“acceptable of God” (1 Peter
Every book in the Bible takes the existence of slavery for granted from Genesis
to Revelation. Revelation
Ed, Your
history of political positions on slavery has been snipped here. The question
is what of the Bible and slavery, not politics behind slavery and biblical
misuse to support political positions.
Now, on to
the Bible and slavery: resurrection evidence can rationally lead someone to
conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead. It does not follow that this
God-Man is necessarily a benevolent God, merely a God. Someone such as you may
conclude from the Bible that this God is malevolent. So be it. Personally, I am
at peace with the apologetics concerning the Bible and slavery as well as other
biblical criticism. The Bible spoke to and addressed the cultures of the times;
the nuts and bolts remain today in modern form. Earthly utopia is not an
option. Until God calls His own and separates them from Satan’s followers and
servants, evil will persist. The Christian’s duty is to follow Christ’s
instruction and example while living amongst the sick and evil. Here’s a work
to interest our readers regarding the subject:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html .
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:05:16 -0500
One of my favorite prayers by the way is this one, written by a pagan who lived
near the time of Christ (though on the web I have seen its authorship confused
with a church father who had the same name, and who lived a couple hundred
years after Christ -- the web attribution is incorrect however since I've
checked the source of the quotation in Gilbert Murray's book):
May I be no man’s enemy, and may I be the friend of that which is eternal and
abides.
May I never devise evil against any man; if any devise evil against me, may I
escape without the need of hurting him.
May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good.
May I wish for all men’s happiness and envy none.
When I have done or said what is wrong, may I never wait for the rebuke of
others, but always rebuke myself until I make amends.
May I win no victory that harms either me or my opponent.
May I reconcile friends who are wroth with one another.
May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to all who are in want.
May I never fail a friend in danger.
May I respect myself.
May I always keep tame that which rages within me.
May I never discuss who is wicked and what wicked things he has done, but know
good men and follow in their footsteps.
- The Prayer of Eusebius (a pagan who lived some two thousand years ago, as
quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion)
ED: Yes, I love that one too. (By the way, Voltaire once remarked that the Our Father might be described as blasphemous since it does not require the death of a substitutionary sacrifice to obtain God's forgiveness, all you have to do is forgive others.)
I think you should also read Bob Price's Beyond Born Again on the web, rather
than settle for what others tell you about it. (I've read Holding's articles
concerning Bob Price's writings, but the first step toward understanding anyone
is reading them for yourself, not settling for reading
reviews.)
I have read that when you were an atheist you read some atheistic magazines and also three books on atheism, Ingersoll the Magnificent, O'Hair's Questions and Answers, and Paine's Age of Reason. Such a list is quite small compared to the hundred or more Christian books I read and studied intently when I was a Christian. And Ingersoll's book is simply a collection of freethought assertions, not footnoted, and not related strictly to a study of the Bible. The same goes for O'Hair's book of questions. Paine's Age of Reason is one of the books I read during my evangelical Christian days and I did not find it challenging as a Christian. Though years later I did find Paine's smaller book "On the Prophecies" to be more interesting and challenging, as he at least stuck to discussing and comparing particular Bible verses in the O.T. with how the N.T. authors used them. Later still I read books by Jewish scholars who questioned how the N.T. authors cited and used O.T. verses. I also began reading theology in earnest, from Raymond Brown to J.D.G.Dunn. (There are ideas and arguments in Brown and Dunn's works that Holding does not tell his audience, and that he seems unaware of himself.) Your atheist activism period and books that you read at that time do not appear to have touched very much on particular Biblical matters, and it was my study of the Bible, not broad freethought and atheistic assertions like those of Ingersoll, O'Hair and Paine, that eventually led me out of evangelical Christianity. (And no, I am not attempting to make you an atheist again. I am not one myself. I am not attempting to make you anything at all in fact.)
After reading my exchange with Habby you mentioned, " the implication is that the Gospels are so messed up
they can't be
relied upon."
You seem to not have considered that parts of the Gospels might be so messed up
that they can't be relied upon, and which parts those might be.
I received your "Habby" mailings. I enjoyed
them.
So far, they offer no threat to my visions leg of my debate with Locks so I
haven't added them anywhere to my pages. Unless the implication is that the
Gospels are so messed up they can't be relied upon, which of course, defies
scholarly consensus in both camps.
As a courtesy
to Ed and our readers, I have included Ed’s entire follow-up post then my
commentary at the end.
From: "ed babinski"
<ed.babinski@furman.edu>
Date:
ED: Jordan, thanks for your rough thoughts below. Any deep amount of thinking
begins with rough thoughts that eventually get smoothed out like pebbles in the
stream of thoughtful human discourse. I've added some additional rough thoughts
of my own below. Perhaps in our discourse we can help rub the roughness off of
each other’s roughest spots.
ED: You appear to be saying that those Christians who
believed slavery was O.K., and backed it up with Biblical arguments, had
"evil hearts." The question I raised is not who had an "evil
heart," but, "What does the Bible say about slavery?" And the
fact remains that... The Old School (Presbyterian) General Assembly report of
1845 concluded that slavery was based on "some of the plainest
declarations of the Word of God.” Those who took this position were
conservative evangelicals. Among their number were the best conservative
theologians and exegetes of their day, including, Robert Dabney,
James Thornwell and the great Charles Hodge of
Princeton - fathers of twentieth century evangelicalism and of the modern
expression of the octrine of biblical inerrancy. No
one can really appreciate how certain these evangelicals were that the Bible
endorsed slavery, or of the vehemence of their argumentation unless something
from their writings is read." - Kevin Giles, “The
Biblical Argument for Slavery,” The Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 66 You seem to
be arguing that any interpretation of the Bible's view of slavery, except that
of Democracy-ized, Enlightenment-ized,
post-Civil War, 20th-century evangelicals such as yourself, involves
"evil" interpretations. Of course any member of any sect that
disagrees with you on any Biblical matter, could make
the same claim, even to the extent that perhaps your interpretations were the
"evil" ones. (Hence the dividing of major Christian
denominations just prior to the Civil War over the issue of what the Bible
taught concerning slavery.)
ED: I agree parables are not commands, but they tell stories that people often
take to heart and that reflect the way society works. Like the parable of the
unjust judge who eventually grants the petition of the woman who keeps
pestering him day and night. The implication is not that we are commanded to
pester judges, but that we should petition God with our prayers, and He's much
more likely to grant our requests than, say, an unjust judge who is not eager
at all to listen to a woman's legal complaints. In the parable that I
mentioned, the master punishes his disobedient servants/slaves (the word is the
same in the Greek). The implication is the just punishment of a master toward
those slaves "who knew their master's will yet refused
to do it." They will be "beaten with many stripes." A lot of
Christians during
ED: It's not just "anyone," it's
"disobedient servants/slaves." 1 Peter 2:18-20 teaches
that the Christian who is a slave should “patiently endure” even harsh unjust
punishments in order to “find favor with God.” And of course the O.T. mentioned
that “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his
hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives a day or two
(before dying), no vengeance shall be taken; for the slave is his master’s
money.” (Ex. 21:20-21) In line with such pearls of wisdom an early Christian
Council, The Council of Elvira (c. 305), prescribed that any Christian mistress
who beat her slave to death without premeditation was merely to be punished
with five years of penance. So of course you don't go about "beating
anyone." But beating disobedient slaves was not seriously questioned in
the Bible. Neither was putting collars on them with their master's name. (See:
Slavery in Early Christianity by Jennifer A. Glancy)
Speaking of evidence of the "pro-beating" side of the Bible, consider
the following verses. (I can hardly think of slaves getting off the hook, not
when fathers are commanded by God to be treat their own children in the
following manner): Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul
spare for his crying. - Proverbs
ED: All political questions aside, you have yet to prove that the pro-slavery
position of many Christians was due to "biblical misuse." In fact
ministers on both sides of that issue blamed each other at that time for
"misusing" Scripture. I think you are attempting to shrug off
such questions by employing the "evil" use, and "misuse" of
the Bible, arguments, because you wish to center the controversies in a place
other than the Bible's own lack of clarity and/or lack of modern-day charity,
when it comes to the question of slavery.
Now, on to the Bible and slavery: resurrection evidence can rationally lead
someone to conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead.
ED: Repeating that assertion does not make it so. Neither does my questioning
it make it impossible. But so far I see that historians only have highly
partisan religious documents to go by, documents that disagree, and no proof
that we even know where Jesus was originally buried, and not even a single
first-hand description of the "raised savior" that the original
eleven apostles allegedly "saw." However we do know that
the time was one of miracle stories and apocalyptic thinking that centered
round resurrections, i.e., a general resurrection as in Daniel, and/or
individual resurrections (were not people wondering whether or not Jesus was
John the Baptist "raised from the dead?"). By my own
reckoning, and that of the current head of the Anglican church (Peter Carnely)among other theologians, the first alleged
"seeing" of the raised Jesus probably took place in Galilee, not in
Jerusalem, and we know not what went through the apostles heads at that time,
after fleeing to Galilee after their master had been executed. The Lukan stories of resurrection appearances in
ED: Since I have yet to see any evidence that would rationally
convince me that Jesus of Nazareth physically arose from the grave,
I need not reply to your further assertion above, except to say that even a
raised body does not prove that the body raised was God. Indeed,
doesn't the book of Acts have Peter declare that Jesus was "raised by
God," rather than say that Jesus "was" God?
ED: "So be it?" So be what? Along with C. S. Lewis I would sooner
conclude that the Bible was less than "inspired" in parts than
conclude that God was malevolent.
Personally, I am at peace with the apologetics concerning the Bible and slavery
as well as other biblical criticism.
ED: I'm happy you have found peace. But simply reminding people you are
"at peace" does not constitute apologetics. But then, from what I
have read in a number of books on the "hard sayings" of the Bible, a
lot of what passes for apologetics consists of reminding the reader to remain
calm and not judge things too hastily, but to remain "at peace"
concerning even the hardest questions. Since it took me ten years of
intensive study and much debate before I agreed with other reasonable people
that many theological questions were valid, and since I have continued to study
matters for many years more, I too am "at peace" when I remind others
that neither the Bible, nor orthodox Christian doctrines, appear true beyond a
reasonable doubt.
ED: Ironically, to some Christians, as well as to some members of
other religions, you appear to be one of "Satan's followers." As for
me, I am perfectly happy and content to let people continue to discuss
religious, theological, philosophical matters freely and openly, and hopefully
without having to stoop so low toward one another as to label each other
"Satan's follower."
The Christian’s duty is to follow Christ’s instruction and example while living
amongst the sick and evil. Here’s a work to interest our readers regarding the
subject: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
ED: Truly interested readers will also like to read a few books: Slavery in
Early Christianity by Jennifer A. Glancy (an important new work from a major university
press) And also...an old classic... LETTERS OF THE LATE BISHOP ENGLAND TO THE
HON. JOHN FORSYTH ON THE SUBJECT OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY TO WHICH ARE PREFIXED
COPIES IN LATIN AND ENGLISH OF THE POPE'S APOSTOLIC LETTER, CONCERNING THE
AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE, WITH SOME INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, ETC. Publisher:
Negro Universities Press, NY Date of Publication:
1969 Edition: Reprint of 1844
Bishop
- The Prayer of Eusebius (a pagan who lived some two thousand years ago, as
quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion) Jordan: Beautiful
prayer--reminds me of, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who
trespass against us." ED: Yes, I love that one too. (By the way, Voltaire
once remarked that the Our Father might be described as blasphemous since it
does not require the death of a substitutionary sacrifice
to obtain God's forgiveness, all you have to do is forgive others.)
ED: Your explanation above constitutes an attempt to make the
prayer align with orthodox theology, however, the
theology of the fourth Gospel and of Paul does not appear to play as prominent
a role in the theology of the first three Gospel writers. When
people asked Jesus how to pray he said simply, "Forgive us our sins as we
forgive those who have sinned against us." The implication is that both
forms of forgiveness are similarly direct. No mention is made of the necessity
of Christ's sacrifice in order for us to forgive those who have sinned against
us any more than for God to forgive us of our sins. Indeed, in the synoptics Jesus is asked a number of times, "how to
inherit eternal life," and never once says it is absolutely necessary to
believe his death takes away the sins of the world in order to inherit eternal
life. In fact, "salvation" is only mentioned one time in
all three synoptic Gospels, and in that case it is of a man who cheated people
of money and decided to return it to those whom he cheated, and Jesus
exclaimed, "this day is salvation come to this
house."
I think you should also read Bob Price's Beyond Born Again on the web, rather
than settle for what others tell you about it. (I've read Holding's articles
concerning Bob Price's writings, but the first step toward understanding anyone
is reading them for yourself, not settling for reading
reviews.)
ED: If you had read Price's Beyond Born Again you'd realize
that he himself does not boast of "refutations" nor
"proofs" but is content to ask questions and draw comparisons (i.e.,
from history, the Bible, and psychology) concerning the methods and means that
people employ to convince themselves that their beliefs are unquestionable.
ED: I was merely comparing your level of knowledge of atheism prior
to your conversion to evangelical Christianity, with my level of knowledge of
Christianity prior to my leaving the fold. And I agree that I was
better versed in Christianity and Christian apologetics than you were in
atheism, prior to each of us leaving our respective folds. Not that
I take that as proof of anything. I am not even trying to prove
"atheism" is true, since I am not an atheist, unlike your attempts to
prove that Christianity is true.
ED: After reading my exchange with Habby you
mentioned, " the implication is that the Gospels
are so messed up they can't be relied upon." You seem to not
have considered that parts of the Gospels might be so messed up that they can't
be relied upon, and which parts those might be.
ED: O.K. Here's my implication. My
implication is that parts of the Gospels, as seen via comparisons of certain
verses in one Gospel with another, open up obvious face-value questions as to
the reliability and truth of those parts. (And when you mention being
"comfortable" with the Gospels I haven't the faintest idea what you
are talking about.)
ED: I do not debate "visions." With Habby I did however debate the Gospels and compared
particular verses between them and discussed the obvious face value questions
they raised. I also suggested, based on such comparisons, that the
eleven remaining apostles probably fled to Galilee and remained there until
they convinced themselves Jesus was not simply dead and his mission ended, but
that God had exalted him, and the final judgment remained at
hand. And they concluded that they must return to
Ed has
merely presented the same thoughts while merely using different words. My
points remain.
. . . you have yet to prove that the pro-slavery position of many
Christians was due to "biblical misuse.”
I have yet
to prove nothing. You have already done it by effectively presenting the
Christian split over biblical slavery. One side agrees with me, the other does
not. One or the other is accurate.
Now, on
to the Bible and slavery: resurrection evidence can rationally lead someone to
conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead. . . Someone such as you may
conclude from the Bible that this God is malevolent. So be it.
ED:
"So be it?"
So be what?
Along with C. S. Lewis I would sooner conclude that the Bible was less
than "inspired" in parts than conclude that God was malevolent.
What
exactly are you claiming? The Bible is too
inaccurate to believe God exists? God exists but He is evil? God exists but the
supposed Good Book is not of God? God exists but Jesus is a myth?
ED: I'm
happy you have found peace. But simply reminding people you are "at
peace" does not constitute apologetics. But then, from what I have read in
a number of books on the "hard sayings" of the Bible, a lot of what
passes for apologetics consists of reminding the reader to remain calm and not
judge things too hastily, but to remain "at peace" concerning even
the hardest questions.
Not my
books. By the way, what do you mean by “a lot?”
ED: Ironically, to some Christians, as well as to
some members of other religions, you appear to be one of "Satan's
followers." As for me, I am perfectly happy and content to let people
continue to discuss religious, theological, philosophical matters freely and
openly, and hopefully without having to stoop so low toward one another as to
label each other "Satan's follower."
You are
allowed one reminder ad hominem warning. Do it
again and your mailings are cut off.
ED: If you had read Price's Beyond Born Again
you'd realize that he himself does not boast of "refutations" nor
"proofs" but is content to ask questions and draw comparisons (i.e.,
from history, the Bible, and psychology) concerning the methods and means that
people employ to convince themselves that their beliefs are unquestionable.
In other
words, “My mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.” Notice that if
someone draws a conclusion from a reading differing from yours, the reader is
simply unaware of the writing’s true essence. My, now there we have a “freethought” philosophy, indeed. Okay, let us go to the
comparisons approach. Let us compare the followers’ visions to other historical
religious visions. Let us also compare other historical legends. Let us compare
other documents’ dating. Let us compare other historical document
contradictions that attest our accepted historical events’ veracity.
. I am
not even trying to prove "atheism" is true, since I am not an
atheist, unlike your attempts to prove that Christianity is true.
I have not
attempted to prove anything. Skeptics solicit my reasoning behind my
conversion. I answer. The aggressors are the skeptics, not I. I merely defend
my conversion.
ED: I
think you are attempting to shrug off such questions by employing the
"evil" use, and "misuse" of the Bible . . .
ED: I do not debate "visions."
Well I
suggest that if you plan on tying up my pages, you best stop shrugging them
right about now. I allowed the slavery topic here because I presented in my
testimony that, “anything that Jesus fella actually
said was not particularly offensive.” I will defend that claim. You, Sir, will
not dictate what I should or should not claim and/or defend. Using slavery to
sidestep the points of my conversion is careless at best, outright deceitful at
worst. My focus is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That keeps me busy enough.
If you wish to argue matters such as whether God created Adam with male
genitalia before He created Eve, you need to visit such an apologist; I do not
care.
Regarding
your ten years of intensive study: that figures about right considering it is a
good ten years behind modern scholarship which now presents:
My Position
a. Jesus Christ existed.
b. He faced crucifixion.
c. By Godly hook, earthly crook, or whatever, there
is no body.
d. Jesus' followers saw SOMETHING they believed to
be a risen Jesus.
You are welcome to challenge those points if
you bring in something new.
Steve locks
opted to post Ed’s and my entire exchange (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/babinski-jordan/1.html).
e-mail:
jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster