christians run scared on slavery
It’s curious watching Christians panic about slavery. Their holy book is chockablock full of handy tips on how good Christians should behave when it comes to slavery:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ (Ephesians 6:5)
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. (Colossians 3:22)
And of course, my own personal favourite from the eternal god who never changes his mind on anything:
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.(Exodus 21:20-21)
But not perturbed by these and many more very clear rules, some Christians cling to this one verse for the scant hope it offers:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
Unfortunately for some sections of Christian society, if they want this verse to get them off the slavery hook, they’ll also have to abandon any notion that their god ‘made them male and female’ and start supporting homosexual marriage and trans people. Because it quite clearly states we are all just people – not our biological sex or gender role. But let’s be fair to them – the verse is obviously not talking about here on Earth. So, slavery is still good!
Now that we have established that the Christian god is super pro-slavery, and very keen for Christian masters to take slaves and treat them properly (beating is fine, just not to death), and that Christian slaves just need to suck it up and behave, it all starts to get rather awkward (as JZ might say). How could a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent deity encourage the owning and mistreatment of other people in its holy book of rules? What would that say about absolute morality if ‘good’ is owning and beating up slaves?
The answer for the most frightened Christians out there is simple: DIVERSION!! Join the ranks of the terrified John Branyan by pretending you don’t understand simple explanations about co-operation, empathy and the logical evaluation of the outcomes of actions. Ignore what you see in the world around you, ignore what goes on throughout the animal kingdom and start claiming that without an invisible god’s morality stick, atheists want slaves!
An intriguing way to spend your time avoiding what’s so clearly written in your ‘holy’ book. But I understand the desperation.
by pretending you don’t understand simple explanations about co-operation, empathy and the logical evaluation of the outcomes of actions
That pretty much sums up Branyan’s utterly pathetic approach, beating anyone and everyone into a mental malaise by diversion after evasion after diversion after evasion after diversion after evasion after diversion.
But I must say, his daughter’s complete reworking of what “Objective” moral truth means is a work of bipolar genius. Gone is “Objective” as something “fixed,” and in its place, like magic, is a “goal” which Yhwh hides from humanity… but just don’t ask her if keeping secrets like that (as to what is right and what is wrong) is ethical behaviour. That enrages her, and her father.
LikeLike
It’s all very amusing! There’s no way to make sense of what the Bible says about slavery in terms of our general collective moral understanding at this point in time – yet they want to convince themselves their god is eternal and morality is fixed. And now it’s simply hiding? But we have a conscience that guides us presumably. And a tricky debil trying to trick us. I’m sure it would make their argument easier for even them to swallow if they accepted that humans can work it out logically.
LikeLike
Both JB and his daughter Amanda are a special kind
LikeLike
I quite liked them to begin with. But they got pretty vicious in their ‘comedy’ post about that tragic case of that child who died. The cognitive dissonance was shattering their naturally evolved consciences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i think they are both as shady as they come
LikeLike
Those who bother to study history are sure to notice how as Christianity replaced paganism in the Roman Empire, slavery disappeared.
More proof that this post is simple hog wash is the Bible itself.
Those who bother to study the Bible (even a little bit) notice that the two greatest events in the Old and New Testament are God freeing mankind from slavery.
Also, a tidbit from history:
Ethnic European American Christians (aka the eeeeevil white male) are the only people in human history to fight and win a war that freed people of African ethnicity, from slavery.
Just simply obvious and easily observable facts destroy the thesis of this post:
that God condones slavery.
LikeLike
SOM, it is with great love, and therefore geniune sorrow, that I have to chastise you, once again, for making every historian in the world (dead and alive) cry.
The first formal abolition of slavery was enacted in India, by Ashoka, emperor of the Maurya Dynasty, who abolished slavery in the 3rd Century BCE.
In China, the Qin Dynasty eliminated slaves in the late 200’s BCE. When the Qin Dynasty fell, many of these laws were overturned, only to be abolished once again in 26 BCE by Wang Mang (Xin Dynasty) who abolished slavery altogether.
In Europe, the first abolition of slavery occurred in Venice, 960 CE, when the Magistrate (Doge) of Venice, Pietro IV Candiano, banned it. Doge’s were men of the Law, not of religion. Venice was, of course, antagonistic to the Vatican.
So, no Christianity yet… But wait, here it comes…
It was not until 1102 when we see the church in London condemn slavery during the Council of London, although slavery wouldn’t be abolished in Britain until 1772, and not by any church influence, but rather a ruling in a secular court of law (Somerset v Stewart).
But here’s a question… If the Indians and the Chinese had abolished slavery hundreds and hundreds of years before Jesus, why didn’t he say anything about people lifting their moral game, so to say, in regards to slavery?
LikeLiked by 4 people
How do you define abolishing slavery? Because, strangely, the UK didn’t actually outlaw slavery, specifically, until April of 2015 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/contents/enacted)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well I’ll be!
In the case, Lord Mansfield said:
LikeLike
There’s certainly good reason to call that the moment of the abolition of slavery in the UK. It made it impossible by outlawing essential elements of slavery. It’s just one of those blurry lines kind of things.
The Modern Slavery Act is more of a symbolic gesture — we didn’t have a slavery problem in February 2015 which meant the Act had to be drawn up.
The three questions you raise in your comment to SoM are really interesting:
(1) Why was slavery considered by the Bible acceptable under some sort of moral relativism,* if there were already cultures outlawing it?
(2) If Christianity was instrumental in the abolition of slavery, why is there not a clear correlation between Christian governments and early abolition?
(3) Why did some Christian countries take a millennium?
LikeLiked by 2 people
John,
The topic here is about the false claim that the Bible, and thus Christianity, condones slavery.
What the Chinese did 200 years before the birth of Christ isn’t relevant.
LikeLike
Well, the bible does condone slavery (even details the regulations around it), and Chrsitianity, also, condones it, as specified by Paul. As jesus was completely silent on the matter then we must assume he, too, agreed with it.
LikeLike
John,
We’ve been over this a hundred times.
Your like a parrot who can’t learn a new script.
God introduced regulations to the Hebrew way of life.
Those regulations began a process of corroding the inhumanity out of Hebrew culture.
As with the Christians, slavery eventually disappeared from Hebrew culture.
LikeLike
I see, and simply saying, “Don’t own or sell human beings as property” was just a little too hard to articulate.
Got it. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
It is obvious that atheism is stupid.
But how much good does it do you for me to say:
“John, atheism is stupid.”
Such a statement would fall on deaf ears and irritate you no end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
God found space for 4 vanity commandments, etched into stone. Not one like condemning slave-ownership. I don’t think it comes down to difficulty of authorship.
Have we considered the option that God fully believes Humanism — an open discussion of ideas — is, in fact, the proper moral epistemology?
LikeLiked by 4 people
That particular excuse is a hard sell for very many reasons:
(1) Other cultures had already abolished slavery, so it’s not like humanity was incapable of being told that!
(2) The idea that humans could make this decision faster than God could orchestrate it undermines the idea that God has any idea what It is doing.
(3) Cultures wax, wane and vanish all the time. It would be basically impossible to actually pin a causality between God listing all the things that are okay to do to your slaves, and slavery being abolished. There’s no rational link, and certainly no empirical one.
(4) God was okay with commanding against lesser crimes in a hard nosed fashion. An edict against homosexuality was proclaimed without ambiguity or hesitation. But slavery — we can do with that for another 1500 years…
The general sense in that Book is that the edicts God gives line up with the preexisting homophobic slave-owning culture.
So, you can assert that nonsense causality all you want, but you can’t defend it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
And yet, Jonathan Edwards, perhaps the most revered figure in American Christianity was a slave owner. Further George Whitfield who along with Edwards is considered the seminal figure in the ‘Great awakening’ of the 18th century, campaigned to have slavery introduced to the state of Georgia which up until then had been slave free.
So the two figures most influential in American Christian history were pro slaves. Indeed Edwards is considered by some as the greatest expositor of Christian scripture other than the Apostle Paul.
LikeLike
There’s no way I have time for this now.
Don’t forget Exodus 21:20 though.
LikeLike
So you can beat your slave to within an inch of their life with no consequences. Well that is handy to know I guess.
LikeLike
Of course you don’t have time for this. You never have time for a real discussion. You only had time to run Ruth in circles discussing how she could be sure 1+1=2.
And the verse you suggest is in the post. Did you read it? Or just skim the title and panic?
LikeLike
I’m not running scared. If atheists believe we’re just random bits of biological goo sprung forth from nothingness, then what’s your argument against slavery?
How we treat a clump of cells is going to be much different than how we treat someone we believe was made in the image of God.
LikeLike
what’s your argument against slavery?
Let’s see, i’m almost certain its the same argument you would present against slavery, namely, every reason you can think of as to why you, Inanity, would not want to be thrown into slavey… Why you would not want your husband or children being thrown into slavery.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Because they’re made in the image of God?
What’s your argument against enslaving a bit of biological goo?
LikeLike
To repeat: The exact reasons why you, Inanity, would not want to be thrown into slavey
LikeLike
If you’re going to insist on being nothing more than a random bit of biological goo Zande, then you’ve rendered my entire argument against slavery impotent.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but i have no idea whatsoever as to what you were trying to say here.
LikeLike
“I’m sorry, but i have no idea whatsoever as to what you were trying to say here.”
I’m trying to find a moral argument for why we shouldn’t enslave you, Zande.
In the absence of God’s morality and His views on the sanctity of human life, I haven’t got one.
LikeLike
Really, IB22? Are you really mystified? Are you really lost without Divine Dear Leader’s hand to guide you into knowing why you wouldn’t want your children as slaves. Really, you require an elder male figurehead to explain what you yourself already know? For whatever reasons you would not wish your children to be slaves to another, you have reasons to understand why the non believer has amoral case against it. Because it’s wrong, IB22, and it’s wrong because YOU wouldn;t want to be a slave, you wouldn’t want your children to be slaves, and it has nothing to do with any a priori ‘image’ of some god.
Good grief, but does the religious mind get any more dense than this pathetic rationalization you offer? Scripture is not your ally, IB22. Your god condones that which you know is morally wrong because he condones people owning people… all of whom you say are made in this ever-so-important image. Your rationalization falls apart with the first wiff of reasoning, the first blush of reciprocity, the first breath of moral concern for the Other. Your God ain’t got none. So where did you get it from, genius?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m trying to find a moral argument for why we shouldn’t enslave you, Zande.
Ah, well, in that case you need only read your bible to justify enslaving me in any number of ways or situations.
Unfortunately, though, for you, situations such as kidnapping me to become a sex slave (Judges 21:20-23) are not open to you as you’re a woman.
Your husband, of course, could however kidnap any woman he wants and keep her in your basement to rape at any hour of the day… If he chooses.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
Why should the rich slave owner who profits greatly from his slaves be interested in what you happen to think or feel about slavery or anything else?
LikeLike
John,
But what about the argument from the slavers point of view?
Slaves are good for the economy, take the jobs free folk don’t want to do and earn the slaver real cash money.
What’s not to like?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“take the jobs”?
Nice wordplay there. 100 points!
LikeLike
John,
My point is that there are two sides to this argument.
What makes you so convinced that your side of the argument is better than the other?
LikeLike
If you want an economic argument against slavery that’s fine, but it’s not morality. I’ve discussed the distinction before (https://goo.gl/ueRJeM).
Slavery limits economic activity! Slaves do not earn wealth, and so cannot become consumers. But they have the jobs that could have been salaried, putting potentially salaried people out of work — meaning they are not great consumers either. It misses a huge potential.
But economic reasons are not the real reasons. But we’ve done a couple dozen exchanges on secular morality, so you know my position. Not point duplicating it here for you.
LikeLike
Allallt,
Morality is anything you, I or anyone says it is.
LikeLike
But we can come to collective agreements based on our current understanding of life, suffering and most positive future directions. Here’s one some humans from all over the world have broadly agreed to (not invisible gods referenced, except in allowing you to believe in whichever one you choose, isn’t that nice?):
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
LikeLike
Violet,
“Collective agreement?”
The NAZI state was a collective agreement.
The Islamic Jihad is a collective agreement.
Your atheist collective agreement is merely a hallucination because by your own admission, there is no atheist collective in the first place.
LikeLike
Yes, these are both subgroup (yet large) collective agreements who believed, and still believe, they were morally right. And both because they had/have a god-designed morality stick that told them so, ironically enough. See where that kind of thinking leads us?
If there’s anything about the UDHR that you think isn’t reflective of best ‘moral’ application, I’d be interested to hear. The good thing about agreements based on non-partisan/secular models is that they can be adapted as we understand more about our existence and the practical implications of our behaviours. Christians often try this approach, but obviously as has been demonstrated on this post, it’s an uphill struggle when you think your god approves not only owning slaves but also of beating them up.
LikeLike
“I’m not running scared. If atheists believe we’re just random bits of biological goo sprung forth from nothingness, then what’s your argument against slavery?”
That’s so cute, Insanity. Panic! And the same DIVERSION tactic Branyan went for. Are you going to claim you can’t understand simple logic too? Even a conscious pile of goo would care what happens to itself and its offspring – and could extend that to other piles of goo. It doesn’t need to be made in the image of any other pile of super-goo to do that. But if you need to behave in a super-goo to behave yourself, I recommend you continue on that course. 🙂
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 2 people
A million points for that! Amazing. If it’s a different time it isn’t slavery. Amazing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tracy really pinned the guy down. Body slammed!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike, some folk don’t know when to cut their losses as that caller demonstrates.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thankfully, some of us did. 😉
LikeLike
Violet I have seen this sort of debate on numerous sites. In my experience the Christian excuses fall into two broad categories:
1) Biblical slavery was not that bad, really more like a household servant; or
2) ‘God’ was making allowances for the culture of the time and the Bible actually introduced rules that sought to humanise slavery and reduce abuse.
But the reality is that these are just excuses that implicitly acknowledge that slavery is seen as normal in the Bible and accepted as part of the way of the world. Hardly the sort of guidance you would expect from a book which is supposed to contain ‘objective morality’ from a divine source.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, here are some more categories for you. Branyan and Insanity ignore the Bible completely and head off on a tangent attack at atheists with their wonky no-god projector set. SOM rewrites history so that Christians are wholly responsible for the abolition, and not the perpetuation of slavery. And Tiribulus is far too busy to even read the post. 😀
Intriguing, like I say, but also I can understand. How could anyone actually defend it!
LikeLike
Pingback: A STRANGE DEBATE – Citizen Tom
I think you missed one:
“And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.” ~Jesus (Parable: The Faithful or the Unfaithful Servant, Luke 12:47-48, KJV) 🙂
LikeLike