An anti Catholic new ager


I was in a heated discussion with an anti Catholic new ager today. The heated part of the discussion was more he than me as his anger towards the Catholic Church was quite obvious. Most of the conversation centered on the existence of absolute truth vs the idea that everyone should be deciding for themselves what is right and wrong.

I hope he replays the conversation in his mind and comes to see how absurd and circular his defense of his position was…but I’ll need to pray for him and I would ask all of you to as well.

My question…he mentioned that someone told him that in the Old Testemant one of the twelve tribes was commanded to begin taking slaves and that this was the beginning of the practive of human slave trading. He could not give me a chapter and verse and I admitted to him that I was not familiar with the quote he might be referring to. I advised him to try and read it for himself within context and told him I would look into it as well.
I know slavery is mentioned in the New Testament…but does anyone know what he may be referring to in the Old Testament?


I don’t know what he may be refering to, but obviously the practice of Slavery is far older. Joseph was a slave in Egypt long before the tribes existed as such.

[quote=Genesis 39:1-2, etc.]When Joseph was taken down to Egypt, a certain Egyptian (Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh and his chief steward) bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him there. But since the LORD was with him, Joseph got on very well and was assigned to the household of his Egyptian master…

The Egyptians were not one of the tribes of Israel.


When I was a kid I read a book called “Cowslip”, about a little slave girl growing up on a southern plantation and her ultimate escape from slavery.

I think it was in this book that I read about a referenced Bible verse which was pounded into the slaves, stating that because Ham saw his father (Abraham) naked, his progeny would forever suffer slavery.

I read something similar in another (fictional) book, and while I remember hearing the Bible story about Ham covering up his father, I don’t remember any justification that his descendants would be slaves for eternity.

I don’t know if this will help you find the reference and I’ll see if I can research and find the alleged verse he might be referring to.

I did also hear from a friend of mine once who had gone south (within the last 10 years) and rednecks there were justifying their racial prejudice with the statement, “It talks 'bout that in the Bi-i-i-ible”


Slavery is mentioned after this period Joseph’s time however many times the Bible tends to use the word slave when it means Indentured servant.

An indentured servant is someone who works for a master to repay a debt.

Once the debt is paid or six years passes the servant is set free.

Exodus 21:2
When you purchase a Hebrew slave, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he shall be given his freedom without cost.

Interestingly, this is the rationality behind the credit agencies of today having to remove unpaid debts from your credit report after seven years. :nerd:



To be honest, when someone tries to tell me morals are relativistic, I just have to laugh. One of my philosophy professors was a protege of John Rawls (the father of American liberalism) and as such quite liberal himself, yet he is constantly reiterating the absurdity and logical impossibility of moral relativism. Its sad that so many Americans hold this belief when a minimal amount of philosophical education would reveal its ridiculousness.

So to answer your question, no matter what explanation you use to explain the existence of slavery in the Bible, an illogical person will not listen.


Read the book A Refutation of Moral Relativism by Peter Kreeft. He pretty much destroys ANY argument they can come up with.
It’s his responsibility to find book, chapter and verse to support his claim.


Speaking of circular reasoning:

quote: reen12 [emphasis mine]

-Catholics claim infallibility, in terms of the doctrines
and dogmas of the Church, aka “that’s all she wrote.”
[not to make a pun]

Once that’s in place, all refutations of “challenges” become,
by logical necessity, circular.

Which case has absolutely nothing to do with whether
the doctrines and dogmas reflect theological reality.
They may or may not.

"Infallibility is fine, but once leave “faith” out of the issue,
then any claims made, are, logically, assertions.

Which has nought to do with “relativism”, in the way in
which many people employ the term.

In short, if X claims “there is no absolute truth”, that,
too, is an assertion.

Once the premise: no absolute truth, is accepted by
"faith", logically deduced “doctrines” can flow from
the flawed premise.

Just a thought to bear in mind, when employing the
term “circular reasoning.” :yawn:

I just bored *myself *silly. :smiley:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit