bfuddled Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I got into a conversation with a Christian friend via email about homosexuality and how wrong I think it is that the church is so vehement in the condemnation of it. I'm not "out" to this friend yet, so they're still assuming I'm coming from a Christian mindset. I brought up the fact that until the abolition of slavery, the bible/christianity was used to support slavery as well, which most Christians conveniently forget. He said that they were just misinterpreting the bible then (as opposed to now?), and sent me THIS ARTICLE about what Christianity REALLY says about slavery. It's a bunch of crap that skirts the issue, but the main point that bugs me is that it says that the reason god didn't outright condemn slavery is basically because it would have caused such an upheaval and that God allowed it in order to accomodate the times?? Does this make any sense to anyone? I mean why would he take such a "strong" stance against homosexuality, which arguably affects a very small portion of the population, but take no stance against slavery? He condemns/speaks out about a lot of things that would have been counter-culture at the time, but just chose to leave slavery out of it? Something as core to human rights as OWNING ANOTHER PERSON isn't deemed important enough to just outright condemn? Is this the only defense for the fact that the bible doesn't condemn slavery, or is there something better out there? The searches I did came up with pretty much the same justification, which, IMO is extremely weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Well, I like to bring up the NT story of the Roman who brought his sick slave to jesus to heal. Jesus heals the slave and instead of preaching to the crowd how immoral slavery is, he instead chastises them for not having as much faith in him than this Roman soldier does. So, presumably, the slave goes back and lives a full live of servitude with the blessing of the son of god. Not a word from jesus about the morality of slavery, with his choice of teaching afterword implying he is ok with the practice. I do not remember the book, chapter, verse of it however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Bfuddled, that article you mentioned wrote this: "He commanded that slaves be set free automatically after a certain amount of time." Bullshit. Pure utter bullshit. Fine, let's indulge the christians and debate what their bible actually says: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/61461-christian-slavery/#.U7IS1LGE5yI The bible specifically states that non-hebrews are slaves for life. Women hebrews are also for life. Male hebrews are set free after a certain amount of time, or at jubilee, whichever came first. To the christians who are reading this: Read the whole chapter of Lev. 25. I fucking dare you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Well, I like to bring up the NT story of the Roman who brought his sick slave to jesus to heal. Jesus heals the slave and instead of preaching to the crowd how immoral slavery is, he instead chastises them for not having as much faith in him than this Roman soldier does. So, presumably, the slave goes back and lives a full live of servitude with the blessing of the son of god. Not a word from jesus about the morality of slavery, with his choice of teaching afterword implying he is ok with the practice. I do not remember the book, chapter, verse of it however... Well.... "slave" may not be an accurate translation. Could also have been his boy toy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-michaelson/when-jesus-healed-a-same-sex-partner_b_1743947.html Roman centurion who comes to Jesus and begs that Jesus heal his pais, a word sometimes translated as "servant.... In Thucydides, in Plutarch, in countless Greek sources, and according to leading Greek scholar Kenneth Dover, pais refers to the junior partner in a same-sex relationship. Now, this is not exactly a marriage of equals. An erastes-pais relationship generally consisted of a somewhat older man, usually a soldier between the ages of 18 and 30, and a younger adolescent, usually between the ages of 13 and 18. Sometimes that adolescent was a slave, as seems to be the case here. Here's a rebuttal, but the comments say that though it's not likely, the same-sex lover option is possible. http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/did-jesus-heal-centurions-same-sex.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 1, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted July 1, 2014 That's pretty much the same argument we get from the christians who come into The Lion's Den. It's definitely weak. god commanded the capture and holding of slaves; god even gave laws on how slaves were to be treated, including a law that slaves could be beaten to within an inch of their lives. god did all this in order to operate within the customs and cultures of the times. But isn't god supposed to be the same today, yesterday, and forevermore? If god doesn't change, then shouldn't he have been as opposed to slavery then as he supposedly is now? Couldn't he have made it law that because Israel was his chosen nation, they would not have slaves, in order to be an example to the nations around them? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderinlostchild Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Being a slave in 18th 19th century America could mean better quality of life than living conditions in Africa if you got lucky with the right master. The New Testament tells us to treat slaves well. But the Bible is perhaps the most racist book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Being a slave in 18th 19th century America could mean better quality of life than living conditions in Africa if you got lucky with the right master. The New Testament tells us to treat slaves well. But the Bible is perhaps the most racist book. For an indigenous tribe member, taken from his home, family and friends in Africa and forced to do labor (no matter how "nice" the master was) is probably not their idea of a better life. Only for a white man accustomed to a western lifestyle would look to Africa and say his way of life is "better". It is the same as looking at another person and thinking, "My life is better. I have a prettier wife, smarter better behaved kids, and I have a bigger house and a more expensive car." But this other person could be, and most likely is, completely happy with what he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderinlostchild Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Some of my post was sarcastic. The Bible is extremely racist and promotes ethnic cleansing and genocide. Many of those slaves were already slaves in Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 It's a bunch of crap that skirts the issue, but the main point that bugs me is that it says that the reason god didn't outright condemn slavery is basically because it would have caused such an upheaval and that God allowed it in order to accomodate the times?? Does this make any sense to anyone? The main job of Christians is rationalizing something in the Bible that doesn't make sense. This is a full-time job with overtime. They weasel out of the slavery issue by inventing some bullshit called "protracted revelation," wherein God only reveals certain things to human beings when they are advanced enough to understand it. People just couldn't understand that slavery was immoral, so God the Plantation Owner accommodated their ignorance for thousands of years until they could overcome it, which, coincidentally, came at a time where there was widespread questioning of the Bible. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Some of my post was sarcastic. The Bible is extremely racist and promotes ethnic cleansing and genocide. Many of those slaves were already slaves in Africa. Well, sure, at first, they were buying people who'd already been enslaved by other Africans. But then they started buying so many of them that there were serious issues with depopulation, and then the price was high enough that tribes would slave hunting for more people to sell when they might not have otherwise. So yeah, some black Africans participated in the slave trade just as badly as the white Europeans did, but the white Europeans were still the main drivers of the market during that period in history, which caused widespread damange on the African continent. Or, hrm.... http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/slav_fact.cfm African Slavery...5. The great majority of slaves sold to Europeans were not slaves in Africa; they were usually recent war captives or victims of banditry and judicial proceedings. 6. Even under harsh chattel slavery, manumission was possible for a significant number of slaves and slaves usually had a right to keep any monetary earnings and buy their freedom. 7. Multi-generational slavery was uncommon... Slave Trade ...3. The slave trade reduced the adult male population by about 20 percent, dramatically altering the ratio of working adults to dependents and of adult men to adult women. ... Myth: Kidnapping was the usual means of enslavement. Fact: War was the most important source of enslavement; it would be incorrect to reduce all of these wars to slave raids. ... Myth: Europeans arrived in the New World in far larger numbers than did Africans. Fact: Before 1820, the number of Africans outstripped the combined total of European immigrants by a ratio of 3, 4, or 5 to 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/africa_article_01.shtml The forced removal of up to 25 million people from the continent obviously had a major effect on the growth of the population in Africa... Africa's economic and social development before 1500 may arguably have been ahead of Europe's. So you take slavery, which already existed in all sort of cultures all over the world but often in a slightly more mild form where it wasn't permanent and you could work your way out of it, add in racism and religious justification for permanent, multi-generational slavery with limited oportunities for social/economic advancement, and international empires, and things got really ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 ..."but the main point that bugs me is that it says that the reason god didn't outright condemn slavery is basically because it would have caused such an upheaval and that God allowed it in order to accommodate the times?? Does this make any sense to anyone?" I think one of our many strong arguments we have against apologists is just what your post demonstrates. Their reasoning is so twisted that it is obvious that they have no reasonable response to call upon. It is also obvious that they first arrive at their conclusion and then go about trying to contrive any argument that might appear to make sense. bill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Being a slave in 18th 19th century America could mean better quality of life than living conditions in Africa if you got lucky with the right master. The New Testament tells us to treat slaves well. But the Bible is perhaps the most racist book. The idea is not what is better or worse it is that someone denied someone else the very rights they were born with to choose for themselves. Conditions are irrelevant. The new testament can eat shit how about. The bible makes slaves of its followers no wonder it taught them to do the same to other people. Slavery is one of the worst types of sickness. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Some of my post was sarcastic. The Bible is extremely racist and promotes ethnic cleansing and genocide. Many of those slaves were already slaves in Africa. I feel like you are trying to justify slavery for some reason. Am I missreading you here or are you just not explaining well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderinlostchild Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Nice try! You must be a lawyer! No wait...a judge! Which part of the post was fabricated? Your honor? Please dont sue me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Nice try! You must be a lawyer! No wait...a judge! Which part of the post was fabricated? Your honor? Please dont sue me! Are you responding to me? Hard to tell if you are or if it is one of the other posts you are responding to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderinlostchild Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 there are currently more slaves today than at any time in history! Three quarters are female and over half are children. It is believed that there are around 27 million people in slavery right now. The better treated your slaves, the more honorable and highly regarded you were. Manhandling a slave (as the Europeans were wont to do) was considered unethical and you risked your reputation if you did not feed, clothe, and provide quality surroundings for your slaves. What would your neighborhors think if you treated your horses poorly for instance? the Bible was penned at a time when slavery was not only widespread, but considered perfectly normal and moral Saint Paul said this to slave owners: “Do not threaten [your slaves], since you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him” (Ephesians 6:9). was looking at both sides of the debate thats all. It isnt a laughing matter but you need to have a sense of humor with these rad traddys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 there are currently more slaves today than at any time in history! Three quarters are female and over half are children. It is believed that there are around 27 million people in slavery right now. The better treated your slaves, the more honorable and highly regarded you were. Manhandling a slave (as the Europeans were wont to do) was considered unethical and you risked your reputation if you did not feed, clothe, and provide quality surroundings for your slaves. What would your neighborhors think if you treated your horses poorly for instance? the Bible was penned at a time when slavery was not only widespread, but considered perfectly normal and moral Saint Paul said this to slave owners: “Do not threaten [your slaves], since you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him” (Ephesians 6:9). was looking at both sides of the debate thats all. It isnt a laughing matter but you need to have a sense of humor with these rad traddys! Where are you getting those numbers? Provide a source. I am not saying I am for or against them I simply want to view your evidence myself. Who believs this? You say it is believed but by whom is it believed? I could care less what the bible says about anything. I can view people and my own life and determine what is right and wrong for myself I am not like the weakened religious minds out there. Of course the bible was written in context with the time in which it was compossed. What do you think it would say today if it was only written 25 years ago? What exactly is even being debated in this thread at this point? I feel like I missed something even after reading all the posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderinlostchild Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 A source for the numbers: https://www.freetheslaves.net/aboutslavery It is time for consumers to demand slavery-free products, governments and international institutions must toughen enforcement and fund anti-slavery work worldwide, activists and advocates must educate the vulnerable and wal mart should be boycotted. I recant anything I said that was unschooled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 A source for the numbers: https://www.freetheslaves.net/aboutslavery It is time for consumers to demand slavery-free products, governments and international institutions must toughen enforcement and fund anti-slavery work worldwide, activists and advocates must educate the vulnerable and wal mart should be boycotted. I recant anything I said that was unschooled. Would love to see an online list started that shames any american business caught doing business with "slave" funded companies anyplace in the world. Boldly call them out show the proof and then sling mud at them until they go away and fail. they deserve no less for denying another human their rightful place to decide their own fate. Actually they deserve a great deal more in the way of negative results coming at them. There are three walmarts in my area. The are bad worse and down right nasty. I would rather go under a bridge and beg than shop there. Even if I wanted stuff cheaper I would not want to suffer being in these three hell holes. There is no hell there is only walmart. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderinlostchild Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 There is no hell there is only walmart -gall That should be enshrined in marble before the Supreme Courthouse! A bumper sticker at least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinas Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Hmmm... I've actually never come across a Christian attempting to rationalise the biblical attitude to slavery. Amongst the Christians I know who voice an opinion on the issue, it is simply believed that slavery existed, was not condemned then, would not necessarily be condemned now, and that those of Hamitic (supposedly African) descent were the servants of the Semitic and Japhethic races on account of Genesis 9 22-27. As such, they disapprove of so called mix race marriage as well. It's clearly an oppressive and inhuman stance - though at least it has the merit of not trying to dodge the issue, I suppose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts