Religious apologetics for slavery

[hongi]

I've asked some Christian, Muslim and Jews about the subject of slavery. Many give this argument that God couldn't have abolished slavery immediately because it would collapse the economy. First, that makes me laugh. The Almighty, the guy who created the world and bacterial flagella couldn't handle ancient economy? It doesn't hold up anyway. For Muslims, Muhammad abolished the system of idolatry that was prevalent in Mecca. By their own accounts, Mecca was a trade entrepot because so many pagans came there on pilgrimage to worship their idols. God had no qualms in destroying such a vital economic resource then.

Second, for Christians and Jews at least, there is one devastating argument against them that I haven't seen refuted yet. Before the Israelites enter Israel, before they have a nation or an economy to even speak of, God gives the laws about slavery on Mt Sinai along with the Ten Commandments and all the other laws. Bada-bam. God instituted slavery. This argument works on Muslims as well. If not the revelation at Mt Sinai, then earlier. Why was there an institution of slavery in the first place? Why didn't God stamp it out in the beginning, such as with Noah onwards?

There are other arguments that religious believers may throw out, like how slavery wasn't the chattel slavery that Americans practiced, as if that makes things better. They may argue that emancipation was encouraged. That's explicitly true for Islam, but the very fact that manumission was encouraged for slaves implies that slaves existed in the first place for manumission. Islam and the other two religions don't challenge slavery. They assume it exists, the de facto state of things. And who's to say it wasn't the natural way of things? If God didn't like it, he would have commanded people not to take slaves. These were exactly the same arguments used by Confederate preachers, who pointed to the Bible as a justification for slavery. Not just Christians either. Here's an excerpt from a sermon made by Rabbi Morris J. Raphall in 1861:

How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments—how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job—the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of "perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil" (Job i. —that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy? And if you answer me, "Oh, in their time slaveholding was lawful, but now it has become a sin," I in my turn ask you, "When and by what authority you draw the line?" Tell us the precise time when slaveholding ceased to be permitted, and became sinful?"

He also comments on Christianity:

The New Testament nowhere, directly or indirectly, condemns slaveholding, which, indeed, is proved by the universal practice of all Christian nations during many centuries. Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers to a slaveowner on sending back to him his runaway slave.

Rabbi Raphall personally opposed slavery, but thought the Bible allowed it. If you're interested, there was a rebuttal from another Rabbi, by the name of David Einhorn. I highly recommend it, if anything because his acerbic takedown is hilarious.

And Raphall is right. You'd expect Jesus to overturn the nasty old religion with his pink and fluffy preaching. But he doesn't say that slavery is an immoral institution, and in fact Paul has a couple of rather gut-churning verses about slaves. Christians kept slaves for centuries. What changed between the Christianity of the 8th century and the Christianity of the 19th century? Were the preachers reading different scriptures from the pulpit? Were the audience somehow deaf to the 'pink and fluffy' Christianity for centuries?

I then get this argument that Christianity and Islam are progressive religions. Jesus wasn't a social revolutionary, he could've taken up arms against the Romans but he didn't. No, what he did was change the hearts of men so that eventually, they'd overthrow slavery by themselves. Then they mention William Wilberforce, but fail to mention that it was about two millenia too late. You get the same argment from Muslims, except it's rather hypocritical because they say that their religion is the final and most perfect revelation. Evidently not, if Muslims in the late 19th century had to abolish slavery.

Oh sure, this 'reforming of hearts and minds' did take place. But it took far too long and lead to enormous suffering and degradation for tens of millions of people. If he's not outright evil, they've just made God out to be callous and incompetent. Maybe that's not such a bad description.

[Samuel]

Many give this argument that God couldn't have abolished slavery immediately because it would collapse the economy. First, that makes me laugh. The Almighty, the guy who created the world and bacterial flagella couldn't handle ancient economy? It doesn't hold up anyway.

How would it cause the economy to collapse?

There are other arguments that religious believers may throw out, like how slavery wasn't the chattel slavery that Americans practiced, as if that makes things better.

What do they think Southerner's were- Taoists? More to the point, ancient slavery could be WORSE. Unlike Southerners who had a relatively high cost for slaves and so used immigrants for expendable work, in ancient times they used slaves or things like mining, which was alot worse.

No, what he did was change the hearts of men so that eventually, they'd overthrow slavery by themselves. Then they mention William Wilberforce, but fail to mention that it was about two millennia too late.

There were anti-slavery activists in ancient times as well- there was a thread that covered the more famous of them.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=134127

[Gandalf]

Many give this argument that God couldn't have abolished slavery immediately because it would collapse the economy. First, that makes me laugh. The Almighty, the guy who created the world and bacterial flagella couldn't handle ancient economy? It doesn't hold up anyway.

How would it cause the economy to collapse?

Slave labour is cheaper. If one could have the work of two hired primary industry workers done instead by one slave, the money saved can be spent elsewhere such as roads, military protection for traders, and such.

[Eleas]

Slave labour is cheaper. If one could have the work of two hired primary industry workers done instead by one slave, the money saved can be spent elsewhere such as roads, military protection for traders, and such.

And how would one do such a thing, given that you can hardly even motivate a slave labourer into performing close to the level of one willing worker, let alone two?

[Gandalf]

Slave labour is cheaper. If one could have the work of two hired primary industry workers done instead by one slave, the money saved can be spent elsewhere such as roads, military protection for traders, and such.

And how would one do such a thing, given that you can hardly even motivate a slave labourer into performing close to the level of one willing worker, let alone two?

I got my numbers backwards. I was thinking of having two slaves costing the same as a hired labourer. The overall point being that slaves get you better money for labour ratio.

[Coyote]

Some things to remember: slavery in the Ancient Era was not always the same as slavery as we think of it today, from more recent history. "Slaves" in the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and early Ottoman eras were a respected class of skilled labourers and at times soldiers. More modern slavery is the 'whip & lash' version, like the Blacks in the cotton fields.

And of that, one of modern religion's few bright moments was that it was many times religiously-motivated Abolitionists that were the tip of the spear against slavery, even enduring public scorn and ridicule for their beliefs that it was wrong.

[Gil Hamilton]

Some things to remember: slavery in the Ancient Era was not always the same as slavery as we think of it today, from more recent history. "Slaves" in the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and early Ottoman eras were a respected class of skilled labourers and at times soldiers. More modern slavery is the 'whip & lash' version, like the Blacks in the cotton fields.

And of that, one of modern religion's few bright moments was that it was many times religiously-motivated Abolitionists that were the tip of the spear against slavery, even enduring public scorn and ridicule for their beliefs that it was wrong.

Somehow, a quote from Futurama floats to my mind:

You know what's the worst part about being a slave? They make you work, but they don't pay you or let you go.

There certainly WERE skilled labor in slaves and even ones in a position of authority. The Athenian police force comes to mind, because it was considered unseemly for a citizen to lay hands on another citizen in Periclian Athens, and would do things like drag citizens in for jury duty with ropes dipped in red paint, despite being slaves owned by the state.

However, to say that slaves in such times were respected and weren't full of the lash is absurd. For much of the history of those groups, this was a time when the victors of wars literally did whatever they wanted to the losers. For example, the Romans actually enslaved entire CITIES at a time and had an entire island (Delos) set aside for processing and selling captured slaves brought in from all over by raids. Do you think the Romans respected them and treated them fairly? I wonder how much respect the soldiers of ANY of those empires had for the women of the nations they conquered or the possessions of people who lived in those nations, hmm?

Not to harp on the Romans, but these were a people who looked at the will and testament of a certain Celtic king that was their ALLY, decided "Hey, women can't inherit property under Roman law!", had the queen (Boudica) flogged, her daughters raped by soldiers as a form of punishment, and declared their country now under direct Roman government and everyone in that country now a subject to the Roman emperor, dragging alot of them off as slaves for Roman settlements in Britian and abroad. Seems like a shitty deal to be a slave to the Romans, but hey, that's me.

[Patrick Degan]

Slave labour is cheaper. If one could have the work of two hired primary industry workers done instead by one slave, the money saved can be spent elsewhere such as roads, military protection for traders, and such.

And how would one do such a thing, given that you can hardly even motivate a slave labourer into performing close to the level of one willing worker, let alone two?

I got my numbers backwards. I was thinking of having two slaves costing the same as a hired labourer. The overall point being that slaves get you better money for labour ratio.

I think the Confederate States of America once subscribed to this theory. Didn't work out so well for them, however.

[Samuel]

More modern slavery is the 'whip & lash' version, like the Blacks in the cotton fields.

Marmalukes don't count as modern? Are you refering to the current slave trade or the version that was abolished in the 19th century?

I think the Confederate States of America once subscribed to this theory. Didn't work out so well for them, however.

Yeah- you need a police state to eliminate the threat of slave revolts.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I think the Confederate States of America once subscribed to this theory. Didn't work out so well for them, however.

Yeah- you need a police state to eliminate the threat of slave revolts.

I believe the point being made is that slavery is economically less productive. It may be more profitable for the owners because they aren't paying the slave workers, but that doesn't mean that the whole system of slaves + owners is as productive as free workers + employers.

[Traveller]

The simple fact is, that Christianity is completely compatible with slavery, it is , however also equally compatible with abolitionism as well. The reasons for this are not hard to understand. Ending slavery was never a priority for christianity, thus the 2000-year delay. When slavery finally was abolished in the west in its various forms, the fact xianity did nothing to oppose slavery or serfdom for the previous 2000 years didn't stop the xians from taking all the credit for ending slavery either. The christian cult from it very inception, had a lot of priories, gaining converts, attacking other christians, undermining the religion and culture of the Greco-roman world, militant activism etc. As an example, the secular-rational tradition of the Romans was a direct threat to the christian cult; thus, a great deal of energy and attention was expended to combat that threat. Slavery, otoh, presented no intellectual, cultural or political challenge to the militant christian cult; therefore it was more or less ignored. If anything, slaves made ideal recruits to the quasi-popular christian cult. Of course slavery was heavily integrated into the economy of the roman empire in a serious way as well, making a direct challenge to the institution (had they been seriously inclined to so in the first place) problematic as it would have brought them into direct conflict with the powerful interests that controlled it. Chrisitans show great energy and fanaticism when seeking to supplant any culture or institution that stands in opposition to its goals, however, they are fairly flexible when it comes to either co-opting or ignoring anything that does not present a direct challenge. So, no, x-ianity never really had any great issue with slavery per se, nor, to use another example, did it really have a problem with gladiatorial combats either. The more formal forms of ancient slavery, in fact, cleanly and gradually over time morphed into the much more x-ian friendly serfdom of the dark ages.

The issue of "whos" slavery was better or worse might be a valid topic, but bears bears little relevance to how christianity relates to slavery.

As to the comment that god couldnt abolish slavery because of it economic implications, I must confess, I have not that line of ....reasoning used before, but I am not suprised by it. Ask your typical red-neck bible thumping american about the their opposition to clean technologys. I have heard many economic arguments(against) inter-woven with a liberal does of God Loves "Guns, the USA, and SUV's, in no particular order. God is just as often invoked, if obliquely, to maitain a harmful economic status-quo in the 21st century as it was in the 4th century.

[Simon_Jester]

The best explanation I've ever heard is "what, you expect people to listen to God instead of creatively reinterpreting divine scripture as a justification for whatever the heck they were already doing?"

This came from a Biblical nonliteralist, who for all I know doesn't even qualify as a Christian in the colloquial definition prevailing on this site.
_________

I think this explanation makes a fair amount of sense, assuming you don't head it off at the pass with something along the lines of "Why doesn't God force everyone to do the right thing at lightning-point or by using mind control?" Which, of course, you can. At that point, my friend generally replies with "Because that would be completely missing the point," throws up his hands, and walks away.

[Coyote]

However, to say that slaves in such times were respected and weren't full of the lash is absurd.

Did I say they weren't lashed? I said that they were a respected class; I didn't say they had a life of silk pillows and foot rubs.

I will concede I should have clarified that the artisan slaves were a respected class, more akin to what we might see as something more like indentured servants. But they were slaves, for sure, and when push came to shove the owner could do more or less as they pleased with them.

And certainly, war prisoners that were placed in conditions of slavery had it rough. In my original post I was thinking about the poor bastards that ended up getting used to row war gallies. But my point was that not all slavery was the 'whips & cotton' varieties we saw in relatively 'recent' times.

[Coyote]

More modern slavery is the 'whip & lash' version, like the Blacks in the cotton fields.

Marmalukes don't count as modern? Are you refering to the current slave trade or the version that was abolished in the 19th century?

The Mameluks & Janissaries were definitely slaves, but also a respected class of needed skillsets (professional soldiers). Anachronistic slavery from the Western point of view, but it worked in the MidEast for awhile.

And modern slavery has a couple distinct flavors that I can think of immediately: one is the labor slavery, like the Confederate version of hard work and whippings; the other is the "white slave" trade that trafficks people, mostly women and girls, for sex purposes. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any government that condones it (although I'm sure many just "look the other way" at the right times as long as certain people get paid off). I also am unaware of any modern religious sects right now that condome it or apologise for it... but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. I think "offical" branches of all the religions currently bar slavery, but certainly various spin-off sects out there do it. Whether it is a part of their religious doctrine (or an unrelated concurrent event) I couldn't say.

It's probably also up for grabs whether certain cults that brainwash their followers into irrational acts can be considered "slaves" or not. Would the Mormon polygamists of Warren Jeffs be "slaves"? Some would say yes, in a way. Jim Jones killed people he thought were trying to leave.

[Simon_Jester]

Coyote, when you say "respected class" do you mean "respected" as in "looked up to, admired," or "respected" as in "not utterly despised?" It makes a difference.

Ancient slaves had a respected place in society in the sense that people had some respect for it. Being a slave did not automatically mean you were a worthless subhuman, and there were customs regarding just how badly a free person could treat a slave. But the position of slaves was well below that of any nonslaves, and they received virtually no respect as individuals unless they were exceptional individuals, or the slaves of unusually powerful people.

[Haruko]

... Unable to end or stem slavery because the economy would collapse. How fitting that I recently read the following passage from Frederick Douglass' Narrative of the Life. Mr. Douglass was describing his arrival to New Bedford, the first free city he ever visited; beforehand, he had only been familiar with the slave holding cities and farms of the South. The visit to New Bedford had a huge impact on Mr. Douglass perspective; not long before, and from his birth, Mr. Douglass grew up a slave and knew only the culture of slavery where he lived.

I was quite disappointed at the general appearance of things in New Bedford. The impression, which I had received respecting the character and condition of the people of the north, I found to be singularly erroneous. I had very strangely supposed, while in slavery, that few of the comforts, and scarcely any of the luxuries, of life were enjoyed at the north, compared with what were enjoyed by the slaveholders of the south. I probably came to this conclusion from the fact that northern people owned no slaves. I supposed that they were about upon a level with the non-slaveholding population of the south. I knew they were exceedingly poor, and I had been accustomed to regard their poverty as the necessary consequence of their being non-slaveholders. I had somehow imbibed the opinion that, in the absence of slaves, there could be no wealth, and very little refinement. And upon coming to the north, I expected to meet with a rough, hard-handed, and uncultivated population, living in the most Spartan like simplicity, knowing nothing of the ease, luxury, pomp, and grandeur of southern slaveholders. Such being my conjectures, anyone acquainted with the appearance of New Bedford may very readily infer how palpably I must have seen my mistake.

In the afternoon of the day when I reached New Bedford, I visited the wharves, to take a view of the shipping. Here I found myself surrounded with the strongest proofs of wealth. Lying at the wharves, and riding in the stream, I saw many ships of the finest model, in the best order, and of the largest size. Upon the right and left, I was walled in by granite warehouses of the widest dimensions, stowed to their utmost capacity with the necessaries and comforts of life. Added to this, almost everybody seemed to be at work, but noiselessly so, compared with what I had been accustomed to in Baltimore. There were no loud songs heard from those engaged in loading and unloading ships. I heard no deep oaths or horrid curses on the laborer. I saw no whipping of men; but all seemed to go smoothly on. Every man appeared to understand his work, and went at it with a sober, yet cheerful earnestness, which betokened the deep interest, which he felt in what he was doing, as well as a sense of his own dignity as a man. To me this looked exceedingly strange. From the wharves I strolled around and over the town, gazing with wonder and admiration at the splendid churches, beautiful dwellings, and finely-cultivated gardens, evincing an amount of wealth, comfort, taste, and refinement, such as I had never seen in any part of slaveholding Maryland.

Everything looks clean, new, and beautiful. I saw few or no dilapidated houses, with poverty stricken inmates; no half-naked children and bare footed women, such as I had been accustomed to see in Hillsborough, Easton, St. Michael's, and Baltimore. The people looked more able, stronger, healthier, and happier, than those of Maryland. I was for once made glad by a view of extreme wealth, without being saddened by seeing extreme poverty. But the most astonishing as well as the most interesting thing to me was the condition of the colored people, a great many of whom, like myself, had escaped thither as a refuge from the hunters of men. I found many, who had not been seven years out of their chains, living in finer houses, and evidently enjoying more of the comforts of life, than the average of slaveholders in Maryland. I will venture to assert, that my friend Mr. Nathan Johnson (of whom I can say with a grateful heart, "I was hungry, and he gave me meat; I was thirsty, and he gave me drink; I was a stranger, and he took me in") lived in a neater house; dined at a better table; took, paid for, and read, more newspapers; better understood the moral, religious, and political character of the nation--than nine tenths of the slaveholders in Talbot County Maryland. Yet Mr. Johnson was a working man. His hands were hardened by toil, and not his alone, but those also of Mrs. Johnson. I found the colored people much more spirited than I had supposed they would be. I found among them a determination to protect each other from the blood-thirsty kidnapper, at all hazards. Soon after my arrival, I was told of a circumstance which illustrated their spirit. A colored man and a fugitive slave were on unfriendly terms. The former was heard to threaten the latter with informing his master of his where abouts. Straightway a meeting was called among the colored people, under the stereotyped notice, "Business of importance!" The betrayer was invited to attend. The people came at the appointed hour, and organized the meeting by appointing a very religious old gentleman as president, who, I believe, made a prayer, after which he addressed the meeting as follows:

• Friends, we have got him here, and I would recommend that you young men just take him outside the door, and kill him!

With this, a number of them bolted at him; but they were intercepted by some more timid than themselves, and the betrayer escaped their vengeance, and has not been seen in New Bedford since. I believe there have been no more such threats, and should there be hereafter, I doubt not that death would be the consequence.

But of course, everyone already knows the North was more technologically advanced and progressive. So much for the supposed benefits of slavery.

[hongi]

"Slaves" in the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and early Ottoman eras were a respected class of skilled labourers and at times soldiers.

I'll eat my hat if slaves were considered a respected class among the Greeks and Romans. Slaves were at the bottom of the social ladder. They were property, which is a far cry from the lowest of the lowest free man.

And modern slavery has a couple distinct flavors that I can think of immediately: one is the labor slavery, like the Confederate version of hard work and whippings;

What do you think slaves in agricultural estates and mines did, if not labour? The Romans had no aversion to working slaves to death and using violence against slaves.

[Thanas]

Depends on the slaves really, as there is no single caste of slaves.

[hongi]

The best explanation I've ever heard is "what, you expect people to listen to God instead of creatively reinterpreting divine scripture as a justification for whatever the heck they were already doing?"

What if people are doing immoral actions (i.e. slavery) because they are listening to God? Will it blow your friend's mind if you suggest to him that maybe God really did tell the Israelites to enslave their enemies?

I think this explanation makes a fair amount of sense, assuming you don't head it off at the pass with something along the lines of "Why doesn't God force everyone to do the right thing at lightning-point or by using mind control?" Which, of course, you can. At that point, my friend generally replies with "Because that would be completely missing the point," throws up his hands, and walks away.

I'm not saying that God should use mind control to make people believe that slavery is wrong. I'm just asking why God didn't show any sign of disapproval towards slavery. Right where we should expect the commandment 'thou shalt not keep slaves', God is giving an exposition into how slavery should be practiced. What gives?

[Gil Hamilton]

Did I say they weren't lashed? I said that they were a respected class; I didn't say they had a life of silk pillows and foot rubs.

You certainly implied in it your post that they weren't modern "whip and lash" slaves.

I will concede I should have clarified that the artisan slaves were a respected class, more akin to what we might see as something more like indentured servants. But they were slaves, for sure, and when push came to shove the owner could do more or less as they pleased with them.

Boy, they treat them like property and do whatever they please with them. Sure sounds like they are respected to me, right?

And certainly, war prisoners that were placed in conditions of slavery had it rough. In my original post I was thinking about the poor bastards that ended up getting used to row war gallies. But my point was that not all slavery was the 'whips & cotton' varieties we saw in relatively 'recent' times.

War prisoners made up the vast majority of slaves in Antiquity, with second place going to falling into debt. And, yeah, they were. It actually caused serious problems in Rome, for example, when the Romans started enslaving whole nations at a time and made them work large scale plantations to feed Rome, because it put all the free Italian farmers out of work (not to mention got them evicted when Roman landlords kicked them out to make room for plantations).

The big difference between slaves in Anquity and slaves now was that slaves were MOSTLY unskilled mass labor instead of ALL unskilled mass labor.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

I believe the point being made is that slavery is economically less productive. It may be more profitable for the owners because they aren't paying the slave workers, but that doesn't mean that the whole system of slaves + owners is as productive as free workers + employers.

That really depends on the economic and cultural paradigm you're using slaves within. The Romans were better off using slaves over paid workers because salves were available in huge numbers, and were thus cheap and easy to throw at a problem, compensating for low individual productivity. It also didn't matter if they died, since there were always more cheap slaves where the dead ones came from. Meanwhile, paid laborers, while more productive, didn't have the advantage of industry, had to be paid, and had to have at least some concessions towards safety made because if you tried to work them to death or something, they'd just leave.

On the other hand, the Union was better off with paid labourers and factories than the Confederacy was with slaves, because by that point, slaves were relatively expensive and a lot less productive than factory workers.

[Coyote]

Coyote, when you say "respected class" do you mean "respected" as in "looked up to, admired," or "respected" as in "not utterly despised?" It makes a difference.

Bear in mind that I have already admitted that I should have clarified my comment-- my main point was the artisan classes of slaves. I left myself open by not being a bit more specific. Their works made them valuable commodities and in that they would earn respect; I have no idea if that made them publicly acceptable companions.

I regret I don't have my sources now, I'd have to do some major digging to find them and I'm not even sure I Have them now... but there was some evidence that the engineers who built the Egyptian monuments (possibly including the Pyramids) were an artisan class of slaves-- highly valued and treated better than low-class Egyptians but still slaves nonetheless (however, juxtaposed with the artisan-builders were the 'human mules' that had to actually schlepp the blocks). There was also a copy of an old letter that had been unearthed from a Roman source where a minor nobleman wrote to one of his friends that he was thinking about freeing his slave because the man in question (the slave) had been such a good companion and a dependable friend for years and he felt the man was more deserving of being a full citizen.

I ran across this stuff while doing ancient studies in Israel, and all my boxes of notes and books are still in boxes scattered between my current house and those left back at my parents' place.

[Coyote]

Did I say they weren't lashed? I said that they were a respected class; I didn't say they had a life of silk pillows and foot rubs.

You certainly implied in it your post that they weren't modern "whip and lash" slaves.

Boy, they treat them like property and do whatever they please with them. Sure sounds like they are respected to me, right?

I already conceded I should have given more thought to the 'lower classes' of slaves which made up the bulk of the working class, but tell me were there not more laws regarding treatment and protection of slaves back then? More so than the African slaves that were put to work in the American South? If you have access to more, better information by all means please share it. I've admitted in numerous posts already that I made a mistake by limiting my comments only to the classes of slaves that served as skilled labor.

Now, in bringing this back to the subject, how much of the slavery in Ancient times (either dirt slaves or skilled artisans) were enslaved based on religious justification... or just because the King/Pharaoh/Caesar/etc simply had the power to do so, and his religion played no role in the decision?

[Simon_Jester]

What if people are doing immoral actions (i.e. slavery) because they are listening to God? Will it blow your friend's mind if you suggest to him that maybe God really did tell the Israelites to enslave their enemies?

I think he'll just disagree with me, and then look at me funny for taking the Bible more seriously than he does.

I think he has a point there. Someone who thinks that a book is full of gibberish should not take its literal wording as seriously as one who thinks that a book is full of historical vignettes and useful allegory mixed in with bouts of self-righteous self-justification by the authors.
______

I'm not saying that God should use mind control to make people believe that slavery is wrong. I'm just asking why God didn't show any sign of disapproval towards slavery. Right where we should expect the commandment 'thou shalt not keep slaves', God is giving an exposition into how slavery should be practiced. What gives?

That's good enough that I IMed him to ask. Reply follows:

"Anything God said against slavery then wouldn't have lasted long enough in the holy books to be there now. Too many vested interests against it."

Personally, I think he's if anything a little too paranoid about the prospect of stuff getting edited out of the books for being inconvenient to the people transcribing it, or into them for being convenient. But then I think about where the book of Deuteronomy came from...

[The Spartan]

"Anything God said against slavery then wouldn't have lasted long enough in the holy books to be there now. Too many vested interests against it."

That's rather self-defeating. Using this logic you can't trust anything in the Bible.

Interestingly enough, it was a similar sort of conclusion that caused Thomas Jefferson to throw out all but three of the Gospels and then excise every mention of miracles, Jesus' godhood and anything about the resurrection whilst making his so called Jefferson Bible.