The Bible And Slavery

[James Brown]

I'm not really interested in swapping clobber verses. I just find it amusing to watch two Christians argue with each other over what God really wants from us. After all, the only thing that all Christians agree on is that the majority of their fellow believers are doing it wrong.

I do not find it amusing. Very real, and entirely innocent, human lives are at stake. This is slavery we're talking about. If you can't take it seriously, you shouldn't be in the discussion at all.

I apologize. I did not intend to make light, and I should have better tempered my words. If you are against slavery, then I am glad, because so am I.

But if someone says, "I'm against slavery; the Bible tells me so," then I find that to be a more challenging position to defend.

 

[southernhybrid]

An inference against which you have no logical, let alone moral, rejoinder.

Well, except that Christianity does not condemn slavery, people who are moral outside of Christianity do.
You seem to be proving the case that Christianity provides no good - the good only comes from people who would be good without it anyway.

Christianity provides no instruction to eschew slavery. Christianity is not a tool to remove slavery or racism. There are good people who try to hold up Christianity as their guidance, but that is only from their personal “interpretation” not from your God’s clarity on the issue.

Simply asserting your point repeatedly is not the same thing as establishing it. Slavery is in contradiction with the very basic teachings of the faith, and this is true unless you can make a serious case for how true, empathetic love and slavery can possibly co-exist with one another.

Your argument also makes no historical sense, as the first abolitionist movements we see evidence for in the historical record were all spurred by religious faith, until quite recently in the grand scheme of things. That said, I do not mind if atheists also wish to condemn slavery, as I think everyone should condemn slavery regardless of their faith. This should not be a religiously partisan matter. If you would like to get involved in the abolitionist movement here in the US, PM me and I can get you hooked up with the network.

I am not interested in arguing about liberal Christianity, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds as if you are claiming that it was Christians who were primarily involved in the abolition movement, while not mentioning the large contributions that atheist females made in aiding the abolitionist movement. I first read about this in the book, "Women Without Superstition". But, I ddi find a link that might be helpful in making the claim that it was atheists who were an important part of the abolitionist movement in the US.


https://www.readex.com/readex-report/issues/volume-13-issue-2/black-freethought-slavery-civil-rights-atheism-and

In his second autobiography, My Bondage and My Freedom, Frederick Douglass asserted that throughout his life his religious views “pass[ed] over the whole scale and circle of belief and unbelief, from faith in the overruling Providence of God, to the blackest atheism.”[1] The point at which he was most skeptical and irreligious was during slavery but Douglass remained a non-traditional religious figure until his death in 1895. After the Civil War, for example, Douglass attributed the freedom of slaves to the work of men and women rather than the will of God and opposed the efforts of black ministers to use the Bible in public schools. He also embraced white freethinkers such as Robert Ingersoll and participated to a small extent in the late-nineteenth century freethought movement.

Douglass was one of many African Americans during his time who rejected belief in God and African American Christianity. This trend accelerated during the twentieth century and was present among some of the most well-known black leaders and institutions, including W.E.B. Du Bois and the Black Panther Party. While historians have all but ignored the influence of atheism and agnosticism on black cultural and intellectual life, it was nevertheless a central intellectual strand that informed black writing and activism for over one hundred years. This essay draws from the rich collection of resources in Readex’s Black Authors and African American Periodicals to demonstrate the presence and importance of this vibrant tradition in African American lif

While Douglass here critiques the religion of the South, he went even further in his 1852 oration on the Fourth of July, noting that white churches in the North were also complicit in slavery because they refused to condemn it from the pulpit or expel slaveholders from their congregations. In fact, Douglass argued of most northern churches: “I would say welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! In preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines!”[3] After the Civil War, Douglass further displayed his independence from traditional religious ideas and institutions. He noted that he liked to thank men for their efforts in freeing the slaves rather than thanking God. When black ministers released a statement saying they would not acknowledge him as a leader of the race if he couldn’t give glory to God, Douglass replied, “I bow to no priests either of faith or of unfaith. I claim as against all sorts of people, simply perfect freedom of thought.”[4]

Frederick Douglass was one of many African Americans during the nineteenth century that became freethinkers, including fellow abolitionist William Wells Brown; Paschal Beverly Randolph; David Cincore; and W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois was raised a Congregationalist but became a freethinker while pursuing graduate studies in Germany.

I always thought that Douglas was simply a very liberal Christian, but apparently there is some evidence that he doubted the existence of gods, if the information in my link is true.

I have no problem with how Christians interpret the Bible. I am always happy to see more progressive versions of Christianity, although in many parts of the US, liberal Christians are a small percentage of all American Christians. This is especially true in the South.

The point of my post is simply to say that atheists are often left out of some of the movements that helped lead abolitionists. That is very typical since we are often demonized and condemned, when it fact, a majority of us condemn injustices and historically atheists have been activists in areas such as abolition, as well as racial and sexual equality.

Imo, the Bible does give the impression that it supported slavery. Perhaps there is something lost in the various translations, but I think we all know that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the US for a very long time. So, even if that wasn't the intention of the original writers of the book, it certainly does give that impression in the most commonly used translations.

Again, I have no problem with those who pick and choose the parts of the Bible that inspire them or give them a sense of purpose, but I think there are a lot of things in what is commonly accepted as the original writings of the Bible that justify some very horrible things. It was atheists and other non religious people who often lead some of the fights for social justice. I remember reading about how Frederick Douglas joined with quite a few atheist females to work together to end slavery. I don't remember if I read it in his book, "Narrative of a Slave" or if it was in the book "Women Without Superstition", which is a large compilation of the stories of female atheists and agnostics who worked for social justice. I do hate it when the contributions of atheists aren't included or given credit for their historical accomplishments.

Now, back to your argument.

 

[Politesse]

Simply asserting your point repeatedly is not the same thing as establishing it. Slavery is in contradiction with the very basic teachings of the faith, and this is true unless you can make a serious case for how true, empathetic love and slavery can possibly co-exist with one another.

Your argument also makes no historical sense, as the first abolitionist movements we see evidence for in the historical record were all spurred by religious faith, until quite recently in the grand scheme of things. That said, I do not mind if atheists also wish to condemn slavery, as I think everyone should condemn slavery regardless of their faith. This should not be a religiously partisan matter. If you would like to get involved in the abolitionist movement here in the US, PM me and I can get you hooked up with the network.

I am not interested in arguing about liberal Christianity, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds as if you are claiming that it was Christians who were primarily involved in the abolition movement, while not mentioning the large contributions that atheist females made in aiding the abolitionist movement. I first read about this in the book, "Women Without Superstition". But, I ddi find a link that might be helpful in making the claim that it was atheists who were an important part of the abolitionist movement in the US.


https://www.readex.com/readex-report/issues/volume-13-issue-2/black-freethought-slavery-civil-rights-atheism-and

In his second autobiography, My Bondage and My Freedom, Frederick Douglass asserted that throughout his life his religious views “pass[ed] over the whole scale and circle of belief and unbelief, from faith in the overruling Providence of God, to the blackest atheism.”[1] The point at which he was most skeptical and irreligious was during slavery but Douglass remained a non-traditional religious figure until his death in 1895. After the Civil War, for example, Douglass attributed the freedom of slaves to the work of men and women rather than the will of God and opposed the efforts of black ministers to use the Bible in public schools. He also embraced white freethinkers such as Robert Ingersoll and participated to a small extent in the late-nineteenth century freethought movement.

Douglass was one of many African Americans during his time who rejected belief in God and African American Christianity. This trend accelerated during the twentieth century and was present among some of the most well-known black leaders and institutions, including W.E.B. Du Bois and the Black Panther Party. While historians have all but ignored the influence of atheism and agnosticism on black cultural and intellectual life, it was nevertheless a central intellectual strand that informed black writing and activism for over one hundred years. This essay draws from the rich collection of resources in Readex’s Black Authors and African American Periodicals to demonstrate the presence and importance of this vibrant tradition in African American lif

While Douglass here critiques the religion of the South, he went even further in his 1852 oration on the Fourth of July, noting that white churches in the North were also complicit in slavery because they refused to condemn it from the pulpit or expel slaveholders from their congregations. In fact, Douglass argued of most northern churches: “I would say welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! In preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines!”[3] After the Civil War, Douglass further displayed his independence from traditional religious ideas and institutions. He noted that he liked to thank men for their efforts in freeing the slaves rather than thanking God. When black ministers released a statement saying they would not acknowledge him as a leader of the race if he couldn’t give glory to God, Douglass replied, “I bow to no priests either of faith or of unfaith. I claim as against all sorts of people, simply perfect freedom of thought.”[4]

Frederick Douglass was one of many African Americans during the nineteenth century that became freethinkers, including fellow abolitionist William Wells Brown; Paschal Beverly Randolph; David Cincore; and W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois was raised a Congregationalist but became a freethinker while pursuing graduate studies in Germany.

I always thought that Douglas was simply a very liberal Christian, but apparently there is some evidence that he doubted the existence of gods, if the information in my link is true.

I have no problem with how Christians interpret the Bible. I am always happy to see more progressive versions of Christianity, although in many parts of the US, liberal Christians are a small percentage of all American Christians. This is especially true in the South.

The point of my post is simply to say that atheists are often left out of some of the movements that helped lead abolitionists. That is very typical since we are often demonized and condemned, when it fact, a majority of us condemn injustices and historically atheists have been activists in areas such as abolition, as well as racial and sexual equality.

Imo, the Bible does give the impression that it supported slavery. Perhaps there is something lost in the various translations, but I think we all know that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the US for a very long time. So, even if that wasn't the intention of the original writers of the book, it certainly does give that impression in the most commonly used translations.

Again, I have no problem with those who pick and choose the parts of the Bible that inspire them or give them a sense of purpose, but I think there are a lot of things in what is commonly accepted as the original writings of the Bible that justify some very horrible things. It was atheists and other non religious people who often lead some of the fights for social justice. I remember reading about how Frederick Douglas joined with quite a few atheist females to work together to end slavery. I don't remember if I read it in his book, "Narrative of a Slave" or if it was in the book "Women Without Superstition", which is a large compilation of the stories of female atheists and agnostics who worked for social justice. I do hate it when the contributions of atheists aren't included or given credit for their historical accomplishments.

Now, back to your argument.

I have no intention whatseover of discounting atheist women and their role. This is, and should be, a group project. I would add James Baldwin to the list, one of my personal heroes. In my own life and struggles, I draw a lot of personal inspiration from his calm but consistent stance against the abuses of the prison system, and he was most certainly and unequivocally an atheist, and queer besides.

Drives for abolition have a deep history that predates the American situation, however. St Augustine in the West was a well-known opponent of slavery for instance, and very nearly succeeded in delegitimizing the practice; John Chrysostom in the East, likewise. Unfortunately their efforts were later contradicted, but there is evidence of an anti-slavery movement in Christianity from very early on, and since we have several times widened the conversation to all religions, the same is true of Islam. While the anti-slavery wing is still embattled, we have been fighting this fight for more than a millennium in both cases. I do not think that it is moral, logical, or acceptable to cede this ground to slavers for no reason, and still worse to do so for a bad reason. Fighting for your religious views should not be a person's primary motivation for engaging in convserations about slavery, not while involuntary servitude is still a widespread and horrific reality of our times in almost all quarters of the world. There are between 12-40 million slaves in the world today, and none of them are helped by telling Christians "Yes, you can support slavery and still be a good Christian. In fact, you must support slavery if you believe in the Bible." Because most people do believe in the Bible, by the numbers, and that statement isn't true. Rather, I think my ability to engage seriously in religious dialogue greatly helped my advocacy in this election. America may be secularizing, but Nebraska is not, and all of my phone-calling in October would have meant nothing if I'd just been trying to get everyone to convert to atheism rather than keeping my eye on the prize: ending slavery.

In the end, we won this battle, but by only a 20 point margin: 150,000 votes. You really believe the numbers would look that good if only atheist Nebraskans (roughly 1% of the state's population) were allowed to oppose slavery? I wasn't personally involved in the Utah campaign this year besides sending some financial support, but it was similarly conducted in an overwhelmingly Christian state, while succeeding nevertheless in its goals. Arguing that Bible-believing Christians in good stead must support the practice of slavery, even if your primary motivation for doing so is to promote atheism rather than slavery as such, is morally flawed at best, and at worst could have real consequences for those suffering the consequences of this ancient and evil institution. Saying that the Bible endorses slavery when it does not is to make a toxic and dangerous claim, and we still have many battles to fight in majority-religious districts, states, provinces, and nations.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am not interested in arguing about liberal Christianity, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds as if you are claiming that it was Christians who were primarily involved in the abolition movement, while not mentioning the large contributions that atheist females made in aiding the abolitionist movement. I first read about this in the book, "Women Without Superstition". But, I ddi find a link that might be helpful in making the claim that it was atheists who were an important part of the abolitionist movement in the US.


https://www.readex.com/readex-report/issues/volume-13-issue-2/black-freethought-slavery-civil-rights-atheism-and

Douglass was one of many African Americans during his time who rejected belief in God and African American Christianity. This trend accelerated during the twentieth century and was present among some of the most well-known black leaders and institutions, including W.E.B. Du Bois and the Black Panther Party. While historians have all but ignored the influence of atheism and agnosticism on black cultural and intellectual life, it was nevertheless a central intellectual strand that informed black writing and activism for over one hundred years. This essay draws from the rich collection of resources in Readex’s Black Authors and African American Periodicals to demonstrate the presence and importance of this vibrant tradition in African American lif

While Douglass here critiques the religion of the South, he went even further in his 1852 oration on the Fourth of July, noting that white churches in the North were also complicit in slavery because they refused to condemn it from the pulpit or expel slaveholders from their congregations. In fact, Douglass argued of most northern churches: “I would say welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! In preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines!”[3] After the Civil War, Douglass further displayed his independence from traditional religious ideas and institutions. He noted that he liked to thank men for their efforts in freeing the slaves rather than thanking God. When black ministers released a statement saying they would not acknowledge him as a leader of the race if he couldn’t give glory to God, Douglass replied, “I bow to no priests either of faith or of unfaith. I claim as against all sorts of people, simply perfect freedom of thought.”[4]

Frederick Douglass was one of many African Americans during the nineteenth century that became freethinkers, including fellow abolitionist William Wells Brown; Paschal Beverly Randolph; David Cincore; and W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois was raised a Congregationalist but became a freethinker while pursuing graduate studies in Germany.

I always thought that Douglas was simply a very liberal Christian, but apparently there is some evidence that he doubted the existence of gods, if the information in my link is true.

I have no problem with how Christians interpret the Bible. I am always happy to see more progressive versions of Christianity, although in many parts of the US, liberal Christians are a small percentage of all American Christians. This is especially true in the South.

The point of my post is simply to say that atheists are often left out of some of the movements that helped lead abolitionists. That is very typical since we are often demonized and condemned, when it fact, a majority of us condemn injustices and historically atheists have been activists in areas such as abolition, as well as racial and sexual equality.

Imo, the Bible does give the impression that it supported slavery. Perhaps there is something lost in the various translations, but I think we all know that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the US for a very long time. So, even if that wasn't the intention of the original writers of the book, it certainly does give that impression in the most commonly used translations.

Again, I have no problem with those who pick and choose the parts of the Bible that inspire them or give them a sense of purpose, but I think there are a lot of things in what is commonly accepted as the original writings of the Bible that justify some very horrible things. It was atheists and other non religious people who often lead some of the fights for social justice. I remember reading about how Frederick Douglas joined with quite a few atheist females to work together to end slavery. I don't remember if I read it in his book, "Narrative of a Slave" or if it was in the book "Women Without Superstition", which is a large compilation of the stories of female atheists and agnostics who worked for social justice. I do hate it when the contributions of atheists aren't included or given credit for their historical accomplishments.

Now, back to your argument.

I have no intention whatseover of discounting atheist women and their role. This is, and should be, a group project. I would add James Baldwin to the list, one of my personal heroes. In my own life and struggles, I draw a lot of personal inspiration from his calm but consistent stance against the abuses of the prison system, and he was most certainly and unequivocally an atheist, and queer besides.

Drives for abolition have a deep history that predates the American situation, however. St Augustine in the West was a well-known opponent of slavery for instance, and very nearly succeeded in delegitimizing the practice; John Chrysostom in the East, likewise. Unfortunately their efforts were later contradicted, but there is evidence of an anti-slavery movement in Christianity from very early on, and since we have several times widened the conversation to all religions, the same is true of Islam. While the anti-slavery wing is still embattled, we have been fighting this fight for more than a millennium in both cases. I do not think that it is moral, logical, or acceptable to cede this ground to slavers for no reason, and still worse to do so for a bad reason. Fighting for your religious views should not be a person's primary motivation for engaging in convserations about slavery, not while involuntary servitude is still a widespread and horrific reality of our times in almost all quarters of the world. There are between 12-40 million slaves in the world today, and none of them are helped by telling Christians "Yes, you can support slavery and still be a good Christian. In fact, you must support slavery if you believe in the Bible." Because most people do believe in the Bible, by the numbers, and that statement isn't true. Rather, I think my ability to engage seriously in religious dialogue greatly helped my advocacy in this election. America may be secularizing, but Nebraska is not, and all of my phone-calling in October would have meant nothing if I'd just been trying to get everyone to convert to atheism rather than keeping my eye on the prize: ending slavery.

In the end, we won this battle, but by only a 20 point margin: 150,000 votes. You really believe the numbers would look that good if only atheist Nebraskans (roughly 1% of the state's population) were allowed to oppose slavery? I wasn't personally involved in the Utah campaign this year besides sending some financial support, but it was similarly conducted in an overwhelmingly Christian state, while succeeding nevertheless in its goals. Arguing that Bible-believing Christians in good stead must support the practice of slavery, even if your primary motivation for doing so is to promote atheism rather than slavery as such, is morally flawed at best, and at worst could have real consequences for those suffering the consequences of this ancient and evil institution. Saying that the Bible endorses slavery when it does not is to make a toxic and dangerous claim, and we still have many battles to fight in majority-religious districts, states, provinces, and nations.

Personally, I see the bible as endorsing slavery through its tacit acceptance of it... I have read it too persistently too many times to not see it.

That said, in the same way as the bible (and especially the NT, especially the Johnnine texts, the only ones I will give the time of day at this point) doesn't say jack about being gay yet the christians largely come down against homosexuality, I don't think what the book says or doesn't matters much here. It doesn't matter much for most Christians. What matters is what Christians think they are supposed to believe, and there is plenty of ground on which to wage that battle.

Essentially, Christianity and the bible is more an excuse for beliefs rather than a reason and I see no moral or ethical reason not to leverage such people towards less damaging beliefs using the same logic that got them there, which is often absolutely none but the "logic" that their plaster didn't lie to them (though I assure you, he did).

 

[Politesse]

I am not interested in arguing about liberal Christianity, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds as if you are claiming that it was Christians who were primarily involved in the abolition movement, while not mentioning the large contributions that atheist females made in aiding the abolitionist movement. I first read about this in the book, "Women Without Superstition". But, I ddi find a link that might be helpful in making the claim that it was atheists who were an important part of the abolitionist movement in the US.


https://www.readex.com/readex-report/issues/volume-13-issue-2/black-freethought-slavery-civil-rights-atheism-and

While Douglass here critiques the religion of the South, he went even further in his 1852 oration on the Fourth of July, noting that white churches in the North were also complicit in slavery because they refused to condemn it from the pulpit or expel slaveholders from their congregations. In fact, Douglass argued of most northern churches: “I would say welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! In preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines!”[3] After the Civil War, Douglass further displayed his independence from traditional religious ideas and institutions. He noted that he liked to thank men for their efforts in freeing the slaves rather than thanking God. When black ministers released a statement saying they would not acknowledge him as a leader of the race if he couldn’t give glory to God, Douglass replied, “I bow to no priests either of faith or of unfaith. I claim as against all sorts of people, simply perfect freedom of thought.”[4]

Frederick Douglass was one of many African Americans during the nineteenth century that became freethinkers, including fellow abolitionist William Wells Brown; Paschal Beverly Randolph; David Cincore; and W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois was raised a Congregationalist but became a freethinker while pursuing graduate studies in Germany.

I always thought that Douglas was simply a very liberal Christian, but apparently there is some evidence that he doubted the existence of gods, if the information in my link is true.

I have no problem with how Christians interpret the Bible. I am always happy to see more progressive versions of Christianity, although in many parts of the US, liberal Christians are a small percentage of all American Christians. This is especially true in the South.

The point of my post is simply to say that atheists are often left out of some of the movements that helped lead abolitionists. That is very typical since we are often demonized and condemned, when it fact, a majority of us condemn injustices and historically atheists have been activists in areas such as abolition, as well as racial and sexual equality.

Imo, the Bible does give the impression that it supported slavery. Perhaps there is something lost in the various translations, but I think we all know that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the US for a very long time. So, even if that wasn't the intention of the original writers of the book, it certainly does give that impression in the most commonly used translations.

Again, I have no problem with those who pick and choose the parts of the Bible that inspire them or give them a sense of purpose, but I think there are a lot of things in what is commonly accepted as the original writings of the Bible that justify some very horrible things. It was atheists and other non religious people who often lead some of the fights for social justice. I remember reading about how Frederick Douglas joined with quite a few atheist females to work together to end slavery. I don't remember if I read it in his book, "Narrative of a Slave" or if it was in the book "Women Without Superstition", which is a large compilation of the stories of female atheists and agnostics who worked for social justice. I do hate it when the contributions of atheists aren't included or given credit for their historical accomplishments.

Now, back to your argument.

I have no intention whatseover of discounting atheist women and their role. This is, and should be, a group project. I would add James Baldwin to the list, one of my personal heroes. In my own life and struggles, I draw a lot of personal inspiration from his calm but consistent stance against the abuses of the prison system, and he was most certainly and unequivocally an atheist, and queer besides.

Drives for abolition have a deep history that predates the American situation, however. St Augustine in the West was a well-known opponent of slavery for instance, and very nearly succeeded in delegitimizing the practice; John Chrysostom in the East, likewise. Unfortunately their efforts were later contradicted, but there is evidence of an anti-slavery movement in Christianity from very early on, and since we have several times widened the conversation to all religions, the same is true of Islam. While the anti-slavery wing is still embattled, we have been fighting this fight for more than a millennium in both cases. I do not think that it is moral, logical, or acceptable to cede this ground to slavers for no reason, and still worse to do so for a bad reason. Fighting for your religious views should not be a person's primary motivation for engaging in convserations about slavery, not while involuntary servitude is still a widespread and horrific reality of our times in almost all quarters of the world. There are between 12-40 million slaves in the world today, and none of them are helped by telling Christians "Yes, you can support slavery and still be a good Christian. In fact, you must support slavery if you believe in the Bible." Because most people do believe in the Bible, by the numbers, and that statement isn't true. Rather, I think my ability to engage seriously in religious dialogue greatly helped my advocacy in this election. America may be secularizing, but Nebraska is not, and all of my phone-calling in October would have meant nothing if I'd just been trying to get everyone to convert to atheism rather than keeping my eye on the prize: ending slavery.

In the end, we won this battle, but by only a 20 point margin: 150,000 votes. You really believe the numbers would look that good if only atheist Nebraskans (roughly 1% of the state's population) were allowed to oppose slavery? I wasn't personally involved in the Utah campaign this year besides sending some financial support, but it was similarly conducted in an overwhelmingly Christian state, while succeeding nevertheless in its goals. Arguing that Bible-believing Christians in good stead must support the practice of slavery, even if your primary motivation for doing so is to promote atheism rather than slavery as such, is morally flawed at best, and at worst could have real consequences for those suffering the consequences of this ancient and evil institution. Saying that the Bible endorses slavery when it does not is to make a toxic and dangerous claim, and we still have many battles to fight in majority-religious districts, states, provinces, and nations.

Personally, I see the bible as endorsing slavery through its tacit acceptance of it... I have read it too persistently too many times to not see it.

That said, in the same way as the bible (and especially the NT, especially the Johnnine texts, the only ones I will give the time of day at this point) doesn't say jack about being gay yet the christians largely come down against homosexuality, I don't think what the book says or doesn't matters much here. It doesn't matter much for most Christians. What matters is what Christians think they are supposed to believe, and there is plenty of ground on which to wage that battle.

Essentially, Christianity and the bible is more an excuse for beliefs rather than a reason and I see no moral or ethical reason not to leverage such people towards less damaging beliefs using the same logic that got them there, which is often absolutely none but the "logic" that their plaster didn't lie to them (though I assure you, he did).

I do not think "The Bible" has a consistent message on slavery at all; it has too many authors. IF I were Paul, writing a letter to a community that I was expecting to have read aloud once it got to its destination, I too would be pretty mum on the subject of slavery. One simply cannot write "rise up and kill your masters" in a document that is going to be read in a Roman public forum to slave and slave-owner alike, not unless you want to get them all killed forthwith. But that doesn't mean he didn't, in private or in person, come to the same conclusions as myself about the responsibilities of Christian life. There are some textual hints that this might indeed be the case.

The writers of Leviticus, on the other hand, clearly intended to institute and formalize a slave state in doing so.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Slaves were also worth a lot of money. It's why white southerners went to war, to keep their property. When Jefferson died and his debts had to be paid his slaves were the most valuable of all his possessions. Paul could have just as easily preached that masters should free their slaves, no bloodshed needed.

 

[Politesse]

Slaves were also worth a lot of money. It's why white southerners went to war, to keep their property. When Jefferson died and his debts had to be paid his slaves were the most valuable of all his possessions. Paul could have just as easily preached that masters should free their slaves, no bloodshed needed.

Well, and we possess a letter of his which seems to be doing exactly that, though the Epistle to Philemon is another one that is "interpreted" quite differently by pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions.

Speaking of Levitical law, it requires that all slaves be universally manumitted during Jubilee years, i.e. every seven. But there is no extra-Biblical evidence that this rule was ever actually followed.

 

[Lion IRC]

This has been a matter of common disagreement from the very beginning, with both sides believing themselves certainly and unquestionably correct. A situation that continues to this very day, as the recent case in the US state of Nebraska attests.

Do you want to start hurling Bible verses back and forth until we get tired? I can even play both sides, if you like, the "wham texts" used in both cases are more than familiar to me.

No need to hurl bible quotes back and forth...if you believe the bible condemns slavery, just cite the evidence.

So you do want me to just post a bunch of verses, and then you'll post a bunch of verses, and we'll just go on and on? It sounds boring to me, but okay.

Gal. 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Matt 12:29-31

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these. ​

Please note the underlined statement.

Matt 25:31-46

“When the Son of Man comes as King and all the angels with him, he will sit on his royal throne, and the people of all the nations will be gathered before him. Then he will divide them into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the righteous people at his right and the others at his left. Then the King will say to the people on his right, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.’ The righteous will then answer him, ‘When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these followers of mine, you did it for me!’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Away from me, you that are under God's curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels! I was hungry but you would not feed me, thirsty but you would not give me a drink; I was a stranger but you would not welcome me in your homes, naked but you would not clothe me; I was sick and in prison but you would not take care of me.’ Then they will answer him, ‘When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we would not help you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you, whenever you refused to help one of these least important ones, you refused to help me.’ These, then, will be sent off to eternal punishment, but the righteous will go to eternal life.”
​

Yes, I know you have proof texts to throw back. You're not the first Evangelical I ever met, and I know your arguments and your verses. I spent much of the last year advocating for an aboilitionist project in my home country (which, by the way, succeeded) and you get a lot of Bible verses thrown at you when you do that. I've read them and I don't care. Imprisoning another human being is still wrong, and an utter failure of the best virtues of the faith. I am less interested in whether you can quote I Timothy at me, than whether or not you can make a consistent logical argument as to how you can love someone as much as yourself but also exploit them for your personal benefit concurrently. Whether you can make a convincing moral case for why a person who is not supposed to value wealth in the first place, can without contradiction or hypocrisy attempt to purchase a human being. If you can't, then your so-called Biblical proofs are full of straw, not stone. But you care more about taking down your "enemies" than actually freeing slaves, or you wouldn't be attacking abolitionist Christians in the first place. Tell me, what have you done lately to end the practice? Because it seems to me that your kind of advocacy is more likely to hurt slaves than help them. An atheist slaver wouldn't care about Bible verses either way, and a Christian slaver would correctly interpret your arguments as support for their position. So who are you helping, and why? It sure as hell isn't the slaves.

You left out "Thou Shalt not Steal." (Slavery is wage theft.)
You left out "The worker is entitled to their wages" (Work deserves payment)
You left out "The love of money is the root of all evil" (Slavery is economic greed writ large)

 

[DBT]

The ancients did not think in terms of slavery as a case wage theft because a slave was the property of the buyer. The bible does not explicitly condemn slavery and its inference against it is weak....'slaves obey your masters' etc.

 

[Politesse]

So you do want me to just post a bunch of verses, and then you'll post a bunch of verses, and we'll just go on and on? It sounds boring to me, but okay.

Gal. 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Matt 12:29-31

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these. ​

Please note the underlined statement.

Matt 25:31-46

“When the Son of Man comes as King and all the angels with him, he will sit on his royal throne, and the people of all the nations will be gathered before him. Then he will divide them into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the righteous people at his right and the others at his left. Then the King will say to the people on his right, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.’ The righteous will then answer him, ‘When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these followers of mine, you did it for me!’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Away from me, you that are under God's curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels! I was hungry but you would not feed me, thirsty but you would not give me a drink; I was a stranger but you would not welcome me in your homes, naked but you would not clothe me; I was sick and in prison but you would not take care of me.’ Then they will answer him, ‘When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we would not help you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you, whenever you refused to help one of these least important ones, you refused to help me.’ These, then, will be sent off to eternal punishment, but the righteous will go to eternal life.”
​

Yes, I know you have proof texts to throw back. You're not the first Evangelical I ever met, and I know your arguments and your verses. I spent much of the last year advocating for an aboilitionist project in my home country (which, by the way, succeeded) and you get a lot of Bible verses thrown at you when you do that. I've read them and I don't care. Imprisoning another human being is still wrong, and an utter failure of the best virtues of the faith. I am less interested in whether you can quote I Timothy at me, than whether or not you can make a consistent logical argument as to how you can love someone as much as yourself but also exploit them for your personal benefit concurrently. Whether you can make a convincing moral case for why a person who is not supposed to value wealth in the first place, can without contradiction or hypocrisy attempt to purchase a human being. If you can't, then your so-called Biblical proofs are full of straw, not stone. But you care more about taking down your "enemies" than actually freeing slaves, or you wouldn't be attacking abolitionist Christians in the first place. Tell me, what have you done lately to end the practice? Because it seems to me that your kind of advocacy is more likely to hurt slaves than help them. An atheist slaver wouldn't care about Bible verses either way, and a Christian slaver would correctly interpret your arguments as support for their position. So who are you helping, and why? It sure as hell isn't the slaves.

You left out "Thou Shalt not Steal." (Slavery is wage theft.)
You left out "The worker is entitled to their wages" (Work deserves payment)
You left out "The love of money is the root of all evil" (Slavery is economic greed writ large)

I'm keen.

 

[ruby sparks]

There's at least two ways to look at this.

There's the 'if slavery was wrong in the eyes of god then the bible would clearly say so'. That's the 'bible supposedly inspired by god' problem and it does not look good for fans of that claim. I think this is the line of criticism DBT is pursuing.

Another way is to see the bible as having been 'written by a bunch of blokes' with no actual hotline to the Elf King (because there isn't one).

In the latter case, my feeling is that as regards slavery (and possibly women too, and quite possibly homosexuality, and indeed many other issues) Christianity has a mixed record over the years, as one would expect. If anything, early Christianity at least, was probably a bit more 'progressive' than most, by the standards of its time. And since that time there have been a number of Christians with whom the continuation of slavery did not sit comfortably.

So in other words, it depends what standards we use to judge the bible on this. In terms of supernatural or divine claims, it's a clear fail. In other terms, probably above average marks, for Christianity I mean, as opposed to what is called Old Testament Judaism.

 

[Rhea]

After all, the only thing that all Christians agree on is that the majority of their fellow believers are doing it wrong.

Quoted for Truth.

This is the thing that demonstrates to me that the Bible has nothing useful - and certainly nothing divine - to say.

 

[Lion IRC]

The ancients did not think in terms of slavery as a case wage theft because a slave was the property of the buyer. The bible does not explicitly condemn slavery and its inference against it is weak....'slaves obey your masters' etc.

The ancients?
Slavery in ancient times was frequently a voluntary choice. Work or starve.
Work or next time there's a war, try being on the winning side.

 

[Rhea]

The ancients did not think in terms of slavery as a case wage theft because a slave was the property of the buyer. The bible does not explicitly condemn slavery and its inference against it is weak....'slaves obey your masters' etc.

The ancients?
Slavery in ancient times was frequently a voluntary choice. Work or starve.
Work or next time there's a war, try being on the winning side.

I love the second sentence on the page you linked...

Voluntary slavery, in theory, is the condition of slavery entered into at a point of voluntary consent. It is distinguished from involuntary slavery where an individual is forced to a period of servitude usually as punishment for a crime.[1] In practice, however, the term is often a euphemism used to hide conditions of slavery which are, in fact, less than completely voluntary.

Suuuure, Lion. Suuuure. Voluntary slavery. Because humans are so happy to live in bondage.


Did you read your link?

Some believe that in ancient times, this was a common way for impoverished people to provide subsistence for themselves or their family and provision was made for this in law.[2] For example, the code of Hammurabi stated that "besides being able to borrow on personal security, an individual might sell himself or a family member into slavery".[3] However, according to a different translation, "If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free."[4] This may be interpreted to mean that rather than people voluntary selling themselves into slavery in return for a loan, slavery was simply the standard penalty for failure to pay off a debt.[5

 

[ideologyhunter]

Exodus 21:20-1:
If a man beats his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave then dies, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, for the slave is his money.
This is God talking (see Ex. 20:1.) God's words are -- what, eternal? A model and example for our lives? Of unalterable significance? A message that tells me how I should live, and how I should treat others?
How, then, did western man in the 19th Century develop an insight into the concept quoted from Exodus 21, and decide that it was primitive and morally squalid, something not to be tolerated, something to be abolished?

 

[Politesse]

Exodus 21:20-1:
If a man beats his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave then dies, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, for the slave is his money.
This is God talking (see Ex. 20:1.) God's words are -- what, eternal? A model and example for our lives? Of unalterable significance? A message that tells me how I should live, and how I should treat others?
How, then, did western man in the 19th Century develop an insight into the concept quoted from Exodus 21, and decide that it was primitive and morally squalid, something not to be tolerated, something to be abolished?

You have an undeservedly positive view of the "western man in the 19th century". I mean, by the end of that century, slavery was still alive and well in much of "The West", and still isn't fully rejected. I heard some pretty damn horrifying opinions on the justifiability of slavery while canvassing for Neb Amendment 1 this election season, and in the end more than 540,000 people voted against universal emancipation, fortunate though it is that their voices did not carry the day.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Viewed as a societal action, abolition of slavery timeline:

1831 - Bolivia, Brazil
1832 - Greece
1833 - Britain
1835 - Serbia, Denmark
1840 - Venezuela, New Zealand
1841 - Russia, Austria
1848 - France
1851 - Ecuador
1853 - Argentina
1863 - Netherlands
1865 - U.S.
1868 - Cuba

Caveat: In some cases, abolition came with specific exclusions, usually in reference to colonies, and, in a few cases above, the original laws were overturned and then reenacted years later. Still there's a definite historical trend toward abolition of slavery and serfdom (and most especially the maritime slave trade) in the 19th Century. But the Bible stayed the Bible.

 

[Politesse]

Viewed as a societal action, abolition of slavery timeline:

1831 - Bolivia, Brazil
1832 - Greece
1833 - Britain
1835 - Serbia, Denmark
1840 - Venezuela, New Zealand
1841 - Russia, Austria
1848 - France
1851 - Ecuador
1853 - Argentina
1863 - Netherlands
1865 - U.S.
1868 - Cuba

Caveat: In some cases, abolition came with specific exclusions, usually in reference to colonies, and, in a few cases above, the original laws were overturned and then reenacted years later. Still there's a definite historical trend toward abolition of slavery and serfdom (and most especially the maritime slave trade) in the 19th Century. But the Bible stayed the Bible.

Slavery was never universally abolished in the U.S., we are literally still fighting this fight.

 

[DBT]

The ancients did not think in terms of slavery as a case wage theft because a slave was the property of the buyer. The bible does not explicitly condemn slavery and its inference against it is weak....'slaves obey your masters' etc.

The ancients?
Slavery in ancient times was frequently a voluntary choice. Work or starve.
Work or next time there's a war, try being on the winning side.

Work or starve to death hardly represents a reasonable set of options. Unless you have a death wish, there is no choice: you work.

Starving to death is not a reasonable option. Choosing to work is not the same as choosing slavery. Starve or choose slavery are not reasonable options.

If someone put a gun to your head and demanded money, your 'choice' being part with your money or die, would you choose death?

If the options were; choose slavery or choose to work for a wage, how many would choose slavery instead of a job?

 

[Bomb#20]

Speaking of Levitical law, it requires that all slaves be universally manumitted during Jubilee years, i.e. every seven. But there is no extra-Biblical evidence that this rule was ever actually followed.

Source?

If you're referring to Leviticus 25, it says Jubilee is every fifty years; and it says all Hebrew slaves are to be freed, not all slaves.

"44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession.

46 And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour."