The Moral Failings of Christianity - Slavery

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, how does Ham's enslavement to his sin justify his enslavement to his brothers? Also Noah's drunkenness was also a sin based on your earlier statement, so why isn't he getting enslaved as well? Isn't a sin a sin? Why the unequal punishment?

1)   His physical slavery was a symbol of his spiritual slavery.  There are literally hundreds of spiritual truths that God chose to use physical circumstance to teach us about.  Why did God use the physical to teach about the spiritual?  Probably because the spiritual is unseen, especially to unbelievers, and is therefore better represented in physical abstracts.  Also, the physical horror underlines the seriousness of the spiritual situation.
2)   The reason why there was unequal punishment was that the refusal to cover someone’s sin and going around gossiping about it makes you worse than the original sinner.

Gen 9:22  “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.”

There is much symbolism in this story, even without touching upon the fact Ham was the father of Canaan.  Noah did sin, but his sin was covered and overlooked by the other two sons, which is exactly how we’re to treat each other’s sins.  But Ham, though he had the opportunity, did not cover (i.e. forgive) someone else’s sin, rather he went and told others about it.
 
Proverbs 17:9 “Whoever would foster love covers over an offense, but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends.”

Pro 10:12 “love covers over all wrongs”

1 Peter 4:8 “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.”

Mat 6:15 “But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

[John Dibble]

I)   Slavery in the bible is clearly tied from the very beginning of Genesis to being a slave to sin, hence God’s people were NOT to be slaves because God’s people were not to be mastered by sin.  Slavery has always had figurative meaning.  (though, as you pointed out, God’s people could agree to be slaves by their own free will for up to seven years, again another figurative lesson that God's people only return to being slaves to sin by their own free will, but even if so, God still provides a means to become free once again)

Since the literal practice of slavery had figurative meaning, the lesson in regards to eternity outweighs any temporary “unfairness” in regard to nonbelievers, just as the destruction of ungodly nations being a lesson to avoid eternal punishment infinitely outweighs the temporary “injustice”.  God simply chose to temporarily forsake some heathen on this earth in order to provide lessons for God’s people to avoid an infinitely worse eternal punishment.  The eternal value outweighs the temporal costs; therefore I find your objections to be trivial and backward.

The literal practice of slavery is the literal practice of slavery regardless of whatever symbolic meaning you attribute to it. This is exactly the kind of argument I talked about in the last thread - using symbolism as a shield to justify wrongdoing.

And are you seriously arguing that because an injustice is temporary that those committing it shouldn't be held accountable for their actions? That IS what you're arguing after all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I do not accept symbolism as an excuse for real wrongs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This says nothing about freeing slaves held in real bondage. It's not a command. How do you know this isn't merely metaphorical?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two problems.

I. Galatians, Colossians, and Philemon were all Epistles of Paul. You can't use them as extra witnesses in this case other than to provide whether or not Paul was consistent. Even if they did explicitly condemn Christians holding slaves (which they don't) how are we to distinguish this as anything more than Paul's opinion on the matter?

II. Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11 are obviously metaphorical. Or are you going to argue that there aren't males and females anymore either? Because if you're going to argue that, you might as well throw any arguments you have against homosexuality right out the window.

Those passages are not literally getting rid of those distinctions because they obviously do still exist. I would interpret them as only getting rid of them to say that anyone can be a believer, that being among the chosen isn't restricted by being a member of the Hebrew people anymore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this seems more like metaphor to me than anything else.

You're argument is entirely unconvincing, especially in the light of the fact that when God disapproves of something the Bible he explicitly condemns it. The Bible is supposedly the word of God - are you telling me that God can't make his message clear? Jesus would have only had to have his apostles write down a single sentence to stop all believers in the future from practicing slavery - "Thou shalt not practice slavery". Yet we find this woefully absent. Had it been there Christians couldn't have used the Bible to justify their practice of slavery, something they did for thousands of years.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, how does Ham's enslavement to his sin justify his enslavement to his brothers? Also Noah's drunkenness was also a sin based on your earlier statement, so why isn't he getting enslaved as well? Isn't a sin a sin? Why the unequal punishment?

1)   His physical slavery was a symbol of his spiritual slavery.  There are literally hundreds of spiritual truths that God chose to use physical circumstance to teach us about.  Why did God use the physical to teach about the spiritual?  Probably because the spiritual is unseen, especially to unbelievers, and is therefore better represented in physical abstracts.  Also, the physical horror underlines the seriousness of the spiritual situation.

See above. I don't accept symbolism as justification for wrongdoing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By that logic if I find out someone is a thief I shouldn't tell anyone else he's a thief, because refusing to cover his sin of theft makes me worse.

[The Mikado]

It's worth pointing out that one of Christianity's early selling points was that even slaves can achieve the Kingdom of Heaven and their degraded status in life would leave them with the possibility of glory in Heaven.  This was shockingly progressive, but also a twisted, reactionary idea in other ways, as it encouraged slaves to bear their miserable condition patiently and wait for the world to come rather than try to improve their lot here and now by force.

[??????????]

It's worth pointing out that one of Christianity's early selling points was that even slaves can achieve the Kingdom of Heaven and their degraded status in life would leave them with the possibility of glory in Heaven.  This was shockingly progressive, but also a twisted, reactionary idea in other ways, as it encouraged slaves to bear their miserable condition patiently and wait for the world to come rather than try to improve their lot here and now by force.

African slaves in this country were taught to believe the same.

[dead0man]

I don't know if it's been pointed out or not, but slavery (at least in the West) was wiped out (mostly) by Christians.  Also, there are more slaves now (mostly in non-Christian places) than there were slaves shipped to the US in total.

[afleitch]

I don't know if it's been pointed out or not, but slavery (at least in the West) was wiped out (mostly) by Christians.  Also, there are more slaves now (mostly in non-Christian places) than there were slaves shipped to the US in total.

Not quite; opposition to the slave trade stemmed from Enlightenment understanding about humanity - many Christians did take a stand against slavery; but as many did not.

[Storebought]

It's worth pointing out that one of Christianity's early selling points was that even slaves can achieve the Kingdom of Heaven and their degraded status in life would leave them with the possibility of glory in Heaven.  This was shockingly progressive, but also a twisted, reactionary idea in other ways, as it encouraged slaves to bear their miserable condition patiently and wait for the world to come rather than try to improve their lot here and now by force.

African slaves in this country were taught to believe the same.

I don't think African slaves in the US were taught anything*. Whatever Christianity they adopted was through cultural diffusion. A great deal of it was mixed up with raw superstition at that.

This is a semi-sidetrack, but it would be interesting to investigate how Noah's Curse of Canaan became the extra-biblical, but readily attested, Curse of Ham (father of the dark races), which became the religious justification of black slavery and racism in general.

*edit: but were instead beaten to forget African tribal culture.

[dead0man]

I don't know if it's been pointed out or not, but slavery (at least in the West) was wiped out (mostly) by Christians.  Also, there are more slaves now (mostly in non-Christian places) than there were slaves shipped to the US in total.

Not quite; opposition to the slave trade stemmed from Enlightenment understanding about humanity - many Christians did take a stand against slavery; but as many did not.

And there were a lot more Christians around then than there were "enlightened" and slavery probably wouldn't have ended as quickly if there wasn't a large number of Christians that came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.  There was a big war here in the states....I'm guessing most doing the dying on the "good" side were Christian.  Yes, most on the other side would say the same thing, but that doesn't mean the "good" side was less Christian or that it should take away from their sacrifice.

I'm no great defender of Christianity, a lot of wrong has been done in the name of Christ, but blaming slavery on Christians is like blaming the millions Stalin or Mao killed on "socialism".

edit-and ignoring the price many Christians paid in ending slavery (in the West) isn't fair to those brave men and women that died in that pursuit.

[John Dibble]

I don't know if it's been pointed out or not, but slavery (at least in the West) was wiped out (mostly) by Christians.  Also, there are more slaves now (mostly in non-Christian places) than there were slaves shipped to the US in total.

Not quite; opposition to the slave trade stemmed from Enlightenment understanding about humanity - many Christians did take a stand against slavery; but as many did not.

And there were a lot more Christians around then than there were "enlightened" and slavery probably wouldn't have ended as quickly if there wasn't a large number of Christians that came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.  There was a big war here in the states....I'm guessing most doing the dying on the "good" side were Christian.  Yes, most on the other side would say the same thing, but that doesn't mean the "good" side was less Christian or that it should take away from their sacrifice.

I'm no great defender of Christianity, a lot of wrong has been done in the name of Christ, but blaming slavery on Christians is like blaming the millions Stalin or Mao killed on "socialism".

edit-and ignoring the price many Christians paid in ending slavery (in the West) isn't fair to those brave men and women that died in that pursuit.

Here's the thing - while many Christians were against slavery at that time, I don't think that their anti-slavery stance was a result of their religious beliefs for the most part. Instead, I think they altered their religion to suit moral beliefs, interpreting the Bible in a way that suited their anti-slavery beliefs. (to some degree this can also be said of the pro-slavery factions as well, though given that I think the Bible does allow slavery to be practiced I think they had to do less twisting) They were anti-slavery in spite of their Christianity. Ultimately many people actually end up being more moral than their religion actually is, which is actually one of the things that gives me hope for the future.

[dead0man]

Jesus gave his followers two things they must do.
1.Love God above everything
B.Love your fellow man as if he (they?) were Me

You can't be a slave owner and follow that.  Yeah, that train of thought would lead directly to a "no true Scotsman" fallacy with regards to Christians (Xahar could get to start a new thread!)...but it might be accurate in this case...and by that I mean most (I'm talking like >95% here) proclaimed "Christians" are really sh**tty Christians and not really Christians.

[Gustaf]

Dibble: if you compare Christian societies, throughout history, with non-Christian societies throughout history when it comes to slavery I think the evidence is pretty clearly stacked up in favour of Christianity (taking as the premise that not having slavery is good, that is).

There was slavery all over Europe before Christianity. Then most of it disappeared. And it did so well before the enlightenment. In Sweden this was one of the key areas of tension when Christianity arrived.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I personally think that it's wrong to look at the decline and eventual abolition of the transatlantic slave trade purely as an example of the heroic actions of humanitarians, but if you're only looking at humanitarian action, then you have to understand that those that were Christians (rather than merely culturally christian, like just about everyone in the 'West' then and now) would not have done what they did had they not been so. To active Christians of that type, Christianity - as they understood it - was the motivating factor behind all that they did. Slavery contradicted the principles of faith articulated by Christ (love thy neighbour and so on), therefore it was Unchristian. And what was Unchristian was Wrong.
Arguing that such people were not motivated by Christianity because their idea of Christianity was different to yours, is bizarre and wrongheaded. The problem with this series (I presume that it will be a long-running series?) is that you have a very unitary and essentialist concept of Christianity, one that is not appropriate for anything other than proselytising.

[John Dibble]

Dibble: if you compare Christian societies, throughout history, with non-Christian societies throughout history when it comes to slavery I think the evidence is pretty clearly stacked up in favour of Christianity (taking as the premise that not having slavery is good, that is).

There was slavery all over Europe before Christianity. Then most of it disappeared. And it did so well before the enlightenment. In Sweden this was one of the key areas of tension when Christianity arrived.

European Christian nations also created and participated in what was possibly the largest slave trade in history. That obviously doesn't favor Christianity.

I'm not one to take things at face value. Since you mentioned this, I looked into it a bit. It seems to me that this type of decline of slavery had two primary reasons - Christians were discouraged from becoming slaves and taking other Christians as slaves (in fact the Swedish case you're talking about the abolition appears to have applied only to Christians - 'every man and women which is born by a christian man and women is to be free in the county of...' cite), and that it was becoming far less economically practical. Slavery of non-Christians was still allowed to some degree or another by canon law, but as Christianity came to be the dominant belief in the areas there really wasn't a ready supply of people to be made into slaves. In instances where there were, such as the Crusades, slavery was indeed practiced to some degree.

I personally think that it's wrong to look at the decline and eventual abolition of the transatlantic slave trade purely as an example of the heroic actions of humanitarians, but if you're only looking at humanitarian action, then you have to understand that those that were Christians (rather than merely culturally christian, like just about everyone in the 'West' then and now) would not have done what they did had they not been so. To active Christians of that type, Christianity - as they understood it - was the motivating factor behind all that they did. Slavery contradicted the principles of faith articulated by Christ (love thy neighbour and so on), therefore it was Unchristian. And what was Unchristian was Wrong.
Arguing that such people were not motivated by Christianity because their idea of Christianity was different to yours, is bizarre and wrongheaded. The problem with this series (I presume that it will be a long-running series?) is that you have a very unitary and essentialist concept of Christianity, one that is not appropriate for anything other than proselytising.

Understand, I'm not saying that their Christianity did not motivate them, but rather that in many cases their view of Christianity itself was molded by values coming from somewhere outside of Christianity. The OT rather clearly allowed believers to practice slavery, and the NT in my opinion doesn't seem to be against the practice itself - slavery was just part of society at the time, and while a Christian slave owner was indeed prohibited from treating a slave badly there wasn't any explicit command for them to stop practicing slavery. Therefore I think the abolitionist version Christianity had to have been influenced by outside values - they came to believe the Bible was against slavery because they themselves were against slavery, and thus became even more motivated to be against it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Understand, I'm not saying that their Christianity did not motivate them, but rather that in many cases their view of Christianity itself was molded by values coming from somewhere outside of Christianity.

The problem here is that your concept of Christianity is uselessly narrow. It is not, and has never been, a single thing in any sense. What values outside, really outside, of Christianity were there in 18th century England? Certainly nothing at a popular level; culture is largely a process of amalgamation and evolution and most of it was Christian by this point. Christianity in England was also very English. Working out the boundaries is actually impossible. Much the same is true at an intellectual level; all intellectual developments during this period happened within a framework shaped by over a thousand years of Christian thought. Certain things were clearly less Christian than others, but nothing was exactly outside Christianity in a cultural sense.

And this has always been the case in all places and at all times. There is no pure strand of essential Christianity which you can use to judge whether a particular way of thinking is or is not Christian. You can't even go 'but, but, the Bible says!' because, of course, the exact role played by the Bible (and by different parts of it) has never been settled within formal Christianity, to say nothing of the minefields that are interpretation, selection and translation.

[John Dibble]

Understand, I'm not saying that their Christianity did not motivate them, but rather that in many cases their view of Christianity itself was molded by values coming from somewhere outside of Christianity.

The problem here is that your concept of Christianity is uselessly narrow. It is not, and has never been, a single thing in any sense.

I never claimed there was, but there are central tenets held by most Christians throughout history. Slavery isn't necessarily one of them, but it's certainly a subject that has come up repeatedly throughout Christian history. You have to understand that this series is not about condemning all Christians in history - it's about analyzing Christian scriptures, beliefs, and behaviors throughout history and recognizing the problems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was this thing called the Enlightenment going on at the time - you know, that time when many philosophers were starting to think from a much more secular viewpoint rather than a Christian one? Christianity certain had influences on things, but to say that people can't come up with something outside of it is just silly. One only needs one's own mind to start thinking outside of a framework, and one only needs to share those ideas with others to spread them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even with matters of interpretation, selection, and translation there are things that are rather clear in the Bible so there are things that can be said definitively about it. What the Bible says is at the core of Christian beliefs, so it's likely the most important thing to analyze the religion.


Also, I'd like to make a consolation about my earlier argument - some of the Christian objections to slavery as practiced in the US could legitimately have come entirely from the Christian faith, as some of the objections were about slavery in the US were about how slavery was being practiced rather than it being practiced at all. That is to say some recognized slavery as a legitimate institution, but found the way some practiced it to be un-Christian. Seeing as the Bible does expect masters to treat their slaves in a certain fashion, this would certainly be able to come entirely internally.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I)   Slavery in the bible is clearly tied from the very beginning of Genesis to being a slave to sin, hence God’s people were NOT to be slaves because God’s people were not to be mastered by sin.  Slavery has always had figurative meaning.  (though, as you pointed out, God’s people could agree to be slaves by their own free will for up to seven years, again another figurative lesson that God's people only return to being slaves to sin by their own free will, but even if so, God still provides a means to become free once again)

Since the literal practice of slavery had figurative meaning, the lesson in regards to eternity outweighs any temporary “unfairness” in regard to nonbelievers, just as the destruction of ungodly nations being a lesson to avoid eternal punishment infinitely outweighs the temporary “injustice”.  God simply chose to temporarily forsake some heathen on this earth in order to provide lessons for God’s people to avoid an infinitely worse eternal punishment.  The eternal value outweighs the temporal costs; therefore I find your objections to be trivial and backward.

The literal practice of slavery is the literal practice of slavery regardless of whatever symbolic meaning you attribute to it. This is exactly the kind of argument I talked about in the last thread - using symbolism as a shield to justify wrongdoing.

And are you seriously arguing that because an injustice is temporary that those committing it shouldn't be held accountable for their actions? That IS what you're arguing after all.

First and foremost, I do NOT regard God’s judgment to be an “injustice” in any regard, which is why I used the word in quotes.  This is, ultimately, your main problem with God – God exercising his right to judge.  You consider God’s judgment as “wrongdoing”.  That is your whole argument, but you won’t address it straight on, rather you’re attempt to play off some supposed guilt past slavery that we should someone all share in.

But I accept that God has to right to proclaim any punishment as a consequence, be it death or slavery.  And the simple fact is that the bible says that God used his sovereign right to exercise his righteous judgment in order to TEMPORARILY use these condemned people as examples to those who weren’t condemned UNTIL the SOLUTION was provided.  Even if it weren’t symbolic and weren’t temporary, God still had the right.

---

II)   As far as the three witnesses necessary to form a doctrine….quote]

Two problems.

i.   Galatians, Colossians, and Philemon were all Epistles of Paul.

I didn’t quote only Paul, I also quoted Jesus.

---

Mark 10:42 “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Again, this seems more like metaphor to me than anything else.

So, whenever scripture totally refutes your argument, scripture is simply being symbolic?!  Of course, you’re ignoring the point that the NT, not only in this instance but repeatedly, commands believers to pour their lives out in service to others and consider others more important than yourself.

There is NO WAY anyone could honestly can take any of the heroes of the NT and paint them as the type who would own slaves.

---

II. Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11 are obviously metaphorical. Or are you going to argue that there aren't males and females anymore either? Because if you're going to argue that, you might as well throw any arguments you have against homosexuality right out the window.

What?  Paul is speaking in the context of addressing the legalism of mixing the Law of Moses with Christianity - Obviously, it is NOT saying there aren’t still literal Jews/Gentiles, slaves/free, women/men…..rather it is saying the old order of things in regard to Law of Moses (Jews were inheritors of Abraham – Gentiles weren’t, males owned the inheritance – females didn’t, the free owned the inheritance – slaves owned nothing) has now been superseded and that these groups now ALL equal inheritors.  Paul is basically saying, “Since they are now all equal in the Kingdom of God, why are you not treating each other as second class citizens?”  Obviously, if God doesn’t deny them full citizenship, then we shouldn’t act as if we are more important or of a higher class than others.  So, if slaves are not now equal citizens, then neither are women and Gentiles.

Which again brings up the slant of your argument:  Why aren’t you complaining of the “injustice” to Gentiles in the bible?  Since most of us are Gentiles on this board, wouldn’t that argument hit closer to home?  You know, as a Gentile myself, I would totally dismiss such as complaint as laughable simply because I accept God’s judgment against the nations (both Jewish and Gentile), and his plan of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles.  As I stated above, your “slavery” argument is simply an attempt to play off of some supposed residual of guilt of slavery.  You didn’t begin with the "injustice" towards Gentiles, even though it would be more applicable to your audience, because Gentiles don’t have a problem with the supposed “injustice” against Gentiles in the bible, simply because Gentiles understand 1) God was justified in his condemnation of the Gentile nations, 2) God’s plan of salvation and the use of Gentiles to teach us that plan.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I never claimed there was, but there are central tenets held by most Christians throughout history.

True enough, but they have tended not to extent much further than 'we should do what Jesus said we should' and 'sin is bad'. Until the nineteenth century or so we can add 'God is scary'. I am guilty of gross oversimplification, obviously. The emphasis being on most Christians, because that implies the religion of the people; and, eventually, the culture of the people. At an intellectual level things were/are quite different, but you must understand that only a tiny minority of the population at any time have ever had much interest in theology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we can be fairly certain that slavery is not one of the central tenants of Christianity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't really characterise that particular intellectual... er... movement or set of movements... in that way. It's true that much of it was a reaction against overtly Christian forms of thought and so on (and so was obviously less christian than older intellectual tendencies and, of course, wider society), but it still operated within cultures and societies that were fundamentally Christian in many respects. Even were this not true, the thinkers of the Enlightenment were not exactly very influential outside a relatively small elite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably the best way to explain my point is to move onto a different topic. Anti-colonial writers almost always wrote in the language of the colonial master of their native country, were almost always educated in the systems of said colonial master and were influenced by works written by various Western authors and political activists. The obvious problems there are, more or less, what I'm trying to get at in this case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disagree entirely, I'm afraid.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is all really irrelevant to a modern day context as no one practices slavery today. Anyway remember that most of the abolitionist movement were Christians.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus gave his followers two things they must do.
1.Love God above everything
2.Love your fellow man as if he (they?) were Me

You can't be a slave owner and follow that.  

two extremely interesting things about "love your neighbor as yourself"

1) the command is from the OT when slavery was still part of the Law in that the Jews could enslave Gentiles

2) the definition of "neighbor" in the Law of Moses was limited to fellow Jews:

Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”

So a Jew could be a slaveowner of Gentiles and still comply with "love your neighbor" because "neighbor" did not include Gentiles.

But, "neighbor" took on a new meaning when the distinction between Jew and Gentile was abolished by the new covenant, which is why Jesus made use of the question of “who’s my neighbor?” by telling a story of the Good Samaritan:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Christ’s call to have mercy on everyone, not just your fellow countrymen, supersedes the Law of Moses which allowed slavery by making distinctions between how Jews were to be treated above Gentiles.  Therefore, now the command to "love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't allow for the slavery of any group because the definition of neighbor has changed.  As always, the bible is three steps ahead of every attempted argument used against it.

[John Dibble]

First and foremost, I do NOT regard God’s judgment to be an “injustice” in any regard, which is why I used the word in quotes.  This is, ultimately, your main problem with God – God exercising his right to judge.  You consider God’s judgment as “wrongdoing”.  That is your whole argument, but you won’t address it straight on, rather you’re attempt to play off some supposed guilt past slavery that we should someone all share in.

But I accept that God has to right to proclaim any punishment as a consequence, be it death or slavery.  And the simple fact is that the bible says that God used his sovereign right to exercise his righteous judgment in order to TEMPORARILY use these condemned people as examples to those who weren’t condemned UNTIL the SOLUTION was provided.  Even if it weren’t symbolic and weren’t temporary, God still had the right.

Ok... why does he have the right? On what basis should I accept that his judgment is automatically good judgment?

---

II)   As far as the three witnesses necessary to form a doctrine….quote]

Two problems.

i.   Galatians, Colossians, and Philemon were all Epistles of Paul.

I didn’t quote only Paul, I also quoted Jesus.

No, you quoted Paul:

Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Col 3:11 “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

Which is why Philemon was told to free his slave Onesimus:

Philemon 1:15 “Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.”

These are all from the Epistles of Paul, letters whose author is claimed to Paul. To claim you aren't quoting Paul is just plain dumb or crazy - or are you going to continue to assert that things that Paul wrote are not things that Paul wrote?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I think scripture is being symbolic when I think it's being symbolic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody said that the "heroes" of the NT had to own slaves. The matter is whether or not owning slaves was still allowed. The lack of a clear condemnation of the practice isn't helping your argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What?  Paul is speaking in the context of addressing the legalism of mixing the Law of Moses with Christianity - Obviously, it is NOT saying there aren’t still literal Jews/Gentiles, slaves/free, women/men…..rather it is saying the old order of things in regard to Law of Moses (Jews were inheritors of Abraham – Gentiles weren’t, males owned the inheritance – females didn’t, the free owned the inheritance – slaves owned nothing) has now been superseded and that these groups now ALL equal inheritors.  Paul is basically saying, “Since they are now all equal in the Kingdom of God, why are you not treating each other as second class citizens?”  Obviously, if God doesn’t deny them full citizenship, then we shouldn’t act as if we are more important or of a higher class than others.  So, if slaves are not now equal citizens, then neither are women and Gentiles.[/quote]

Paul also said this:

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

If Christians weren't allowed to have slaves anymore, how could one be a Christian and a slave's master? Wouldn't a true believer, who according to you would have received the Holy Spirit, know to free his slaves? Or maybe your claim is incorrect.

Advocating that people treat one another better isn't the same thing as abolishing social institutions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Don't bold an entire paragraph. It's dumb and doesn't help your argument.
2. I have no residual guilt for slavery - I've never practiced it, why would I feel guilty?
3. Earlier I asked you "But again for the sake of argument let's say that with or without the above things noted I agreed with your premise that believers aren't allowed to enslave other believers. Is that somehow supposed to make the enslavement of non-believers less bad?" - how is that not addressing this particular complaint? In the OT the Gentiles were the non-believers, after all.
4. I regard slavery as immoral regardless of who is enslaved. Do you honestly think I'd complain less if it wasn't my group that was affected?

[John Dibble]

This is all really irrelevant to a modern day context as no one practices slavery today.

1. It's relevant because people still practice Christianity.
2. People do practice slavery today - it's estimated that between 12 and 27 million people are currently living as slaves. It isn't necessarily legal, but it is practiced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what? Most of the pro-slavery movement was also Christian.

[Storebought]

This is all really irrelevant to a modern day context as no one practices slavery today.

1. It's relevant because people still practice Christianity.
2. People do practice slavery today - it's estimated that between 12 and 27 million people are currently living as slaves. It isn't necessarily legal, but it is practiced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what? Most of the pro-slavery movement was also Christian.

Aren't most of those slaves found in Islamic countries?

You could argue that Islamic slavery, along with sex trafficking the only type practiced much nowadays, has at its basis for enslavement the tacit approval given to it in the Koran, which was based strongly on the Old Testament.

Following this logic, Islam hasn't repudiated slavery to the extent that Christianity has** because it is a text-based and literalistic religion that (ostensibly) gives its followers less freedom of conscience to select which parts of the Koran to obey and which to sweep under the rug.

On the other hand, you could simply say that mass slave trafficking -- as opposed to simple war fugitive slavery -- was a deep and prominent feature of the Near Eastern culture from which the Abrahamic religions derived. What you should be arguing instead is how early Christianity found any objections at all against slavery given that background.

** or at least to an extent that Christians can ignore the injunctions in their holy texts and traditions and still call themselves such

[??????????]

It's worth pointing out that one of Christianity's early selling points was that even slaves can achieve the Kingdom of Heaven and their degraded status in life would leave them with the possibility of glory in Heaven.  This was shockingly progressive, but also a twisted, reactionary idea in other ways, as it encouraged slaves to bear their miserable condition patiently and wait for the world to come rather than try to improve their lot here and now by force.

African slaves in this country were taught to believe the same.

I don't think African slaves in the US were taught anything*. Whatever Christianity they adopted was through cultural diffusion. A great deal of it was mixed up with raw superstition at that.

Depends on the situation, not every slave was treated the same on every plantation. Some were taught religion, some not, some were taught to read and write (even though it was illegal). All depended on the master, state, community.

[John Dibble]

This is all really irrelevant to a modern day context as no one practices slavery today.

1. It's relevant because people still practice Christianity.
2. People do practice slavery today - it's estimated that between 12 and 27 million people are currently living as slaves. It isn't necessarily legal, but it is practiced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what? Most of the pro-slavery movement was also Christian.

Aren't most of those slaves found in Islamic countries?

The majority are debt slaves in Southeast Asia, which includes non-Islamic majority nations such as India. In the US it probably numbers in the hundreds of thousands. My bringing it up was primarily because BRTD idiotically claimed that nobody practices it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm by no means letting Islam off the hook - it certainly has a mass of moral failures of its own, and my understanding of the Koran does indicate that it much more explicitly allows slavery when compared to the NT portion of the Christian Bible. I'm addressing Christianity primarily because the audience here are from traditionally majority Christian nations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the religions were certainly influenced by the areas they rose from. I would by no means claim that the Abrahamic religions were the first to practice it.