User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 5:24:19 PM EDT
[#1]
'Twas the Church's abolitionist movement that drove us to the CW and ultimately to the 13th amendment. The American Revolution was fomented in the church. These two events, creating the greatest social changes in our history, were largely due to the Church.
Yes, slavery was the issue that caused the CW. To answer your question, it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 5:24:42 PM EDT
[#2]
Because they either believed, or convinced themselves, that they were doing the slaves a favor. Removing them from their barbaric land, where the mortality rate was absurdly high, disease was rampant and education and religion was nil, and bringing them to civilization where they could be taught proper Christian values, some minor education, and live to old age then die and go to heaven.
What part of 16th century (and earlier) Christian values does the above not fit in with? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 5:28:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is one of those things where if you take a good honest look at it you will discover something. I considered this as well as a few other things not long ago and....it didn't bode well for my continuing church participation. So the fact that an institution didn't vigorously oppose an activity hundreds of years ago (even though it denounces it now) determines whether you attend. If you took that view of citizenship you'd live on an island nation in the South Pacific but I'd bet even they had slavery in their history so now what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 5:33:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to know this as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've been wondering about this: While many peoples throughout history have practiced slavery (and some still do), it seems that slavery is incompatible with Christianity in particular. How else does one interpret the commandment to love one another and to treat your neighbor as yourself? Yet even the early Christian church did not speak out against slavery and obviously scores of good, God-fearing people somehow managed to go to Church and live a Christian life while accepting slavery as an institution. Does anyone know of a scholarly article that deals with this? I'd like to know this as well. Like marriage, slavery is an institution that long antedated Christianity. NT scripture does not comment on the institutions except to say what is expected of Christians involved in them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 5:35:19 PM EDT
[#5]
two things.
money and they were black. they were making a lot of money from their labor and being black it was easy to cast them as little more then animals as to which God said they had dominion over. also i disagree with the propaganda that African Slaves were beaten regularly like the movies and such claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 5:37:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This I think the Hebrews had firm rules on the treatment of "slaves" and they where to be treated as human beings not animals. More of an employee and there compensation was food, shelter, and protection. My understanding anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think the "problem" is that many Americans have a picture in their minds of slavery as Snidely Whiplash beating his slave (Uncle Tom) with a whip on a whim. Biblical slaves were more like indentured servants, working to pay off a debt. At the end of their service they were even given instructions on how to continue to work for their masters if they wanted too. Masters were not to mistreat their indentured servants and most did not. It was not as cut and dried as many think. This I think the Hebrews had firm rules on the treatment of "slaves" and they where to be treated as human beings not animals. More of an employee and there compensation was food, shelter, and protection. My understanding anyway. memory serves. There was also the concept of the "pierced ear slave". Of course, there are also long term effects. If I recall correctly the founder of the AME denomination was a slave who refused freedom when offered. He eventually converted his master.....who then freed all his slaves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 5:56:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Israelites sold themselves into slavery because of a famine/drought. They stayed in slavery for quite some time (430 years). That said, their slavery was probably pretty much that of European surfs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 6:04:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Because religious morality is subjective morality. When you live in a time and culture surrounded by slavery, and it is in your holy book, you are inclined to accept it.
No where in the book does it say "thou shall not own slaves", so therefore, people had wide latitude in interpretations on the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 6:04:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Israelites sold themselves into slavery because of a famine/drought. They stayed in slavery for quite some time (430 years). That said, their slavery was probably pretty much that of European surfs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 6:05:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the "problem" is that many Americans have a picture in their minds of slavery as Snidely Whiplash beating his slave (Uncle Tom) with a whip on a whim. Biblical slaves were more like indentured servants, working to pay off a debt. At the end of their service they were even given instructions on how to continue to work for their masters if they wanted too. Masters were not to mistreat their indentured servants and most did not. It was not as cut and dried as many think. Other slaves, including sex slaves, were for life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 6:47:10 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you were the head of a kind, loving household, and you knew that by buying and owning a slave family you could keep them all together and keep them "safe" from a cruel master, what could we say then? Would you be evil or charitable by becoming a slave master? That might be true for a few select individuals, but I doubt that was commonplace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 6:47:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is one of those things where if you take a good honest look at it you will discover something. I considered this as well as a few other things not long ago and....it didn't bode well for my continuing church participation. You should get off your high horse before you fall off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 6:51:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In "ancient times" slavery was commonplace, worldwide. Why did those damned ancient people not have our modern sentiments about social institutions? Indeed. Slavery is still common in some parts of Africa. But since mainly moslems are doing it against Christians, nobody cares. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/17/world/la-fg-wn-slavery-africa-20131017 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa In more recent times Wilberforce lobbied the UK for many year to abolish slavery beating us by about 30 years. His abolitionist views stemmed from his Christian faith. This wasn't meant to be an "us vs. them" deal. Just because people are still doing it in other parts of the world doesn't erase our history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 6:57:09 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you talking about just Christian slaveowners? Or slaveowners in areas/countries that had (some level of) Christian influence? If the latter, then accepting the world as it is, while doing what you can to bring about the Kingdom of God, is what Christianity is all about. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, right? Slavery is principally an economic institution, after all. Yes, it's wrong, but it's also wrong in the same sort of way that Communism is. It's a collective guilt, notwithstanding the behavior of any individual person. The modern parallel of abortion might shed some light on it. Yes, it's wrong. Yes, you should oppose it. The Church certainly does oppose it. But fundamentally, you can't control the past (say, a supreme court decision), and you can't control the actions of any other particular person. Do what you can, but accept your limitations without guilt. So, as a Christian, obviously you're called to not participate, encourage others not to participate, and to pray for the morally just side of things. But you also need to accept that there's a limit to what you're going to be capable of. That's not resignation. It doesn't mean give up. But you don't need to apologize for having human limitations. God created you with those limitations, and quite on purpose. But if you're talking specifically about the religious justifications written and said by certain leaders in the 19th Century American South? That, I can't explain. Maybe just file under, "lol, Protestants." Interesting take on it, although I think your last sentence is over the top; I imagine plenty of Louisiana slave owners were Catholics. But yeah - basically, I'd like to ask one of those slave owners from the antebellum South: "How do you explain keeping slaves in light of your Christian faith?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:00:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because they either believed, or convinced themselves, that they were doing the slaves a favor. Removing them from their barbaric land, where the mortality rate was absurdly high, disease was rampant and education and religion was nil, and bringing them to civilization where they could be taught proper Christian values, some minor education, and live to old age then die and go to heaven. What part of 16th century (and earlier) Christian values does the above not fit in with? Is there any proof that slave traders were these benevolent creatures intent on saving their slaves from themselves? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:06:47 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. But that is not as big of a deal as some may think. The Bible is about mankind's eternal Salvation. If a person is free or slave and dies in their sins, they will all go to the same place. The Bible is more concerned about that happens for eternity than for 70 years on earth. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
anything in the Bible that says slavery is bad? Nope. But that is not as big of a deal as some may think. The Bible is about mankind's eternal Salvation. If a person is free or slave and dies in their sins, they will all go to the same place. The Bible is more concerned about that happens for eternity than for 70 years on earth. Going off your prior statement, yes, salvation & understanding devotion to Christ for your master was commanded. Christ would rather us be & remain free. But in him there is freedom this world can not subdue. As Paul said he was a slave of Christ & he spent his last many years a prisoner: "I appeal to Cesar!" Many slaves were more free than he was, yet what did he say? "In any condition I have learned to be content..." People want to use slavery as a stepping stone to un-truth all the while we, as nations, are being enslaved. Oxymoron much? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:09:04 PM EDT
[#17]
There have been some good replies in this post - thanks. It is something that has always bothered me, thinking "How can you reconcile the love for neighbor with the ruthless enslavement of a person?" There are only few answers that really lend themselves to this situation, and the one that I keep coming back to is a favorite of humanity from throughout history: You simply don't think of them as truly human.
When you take that step, atrocities become much easier to justify. The Jews in Germany is a prime example of this, as are most atrocities committed by one people against another throughout history. I think there is plenty of written evidence to somewhat justify this position, as several noted philosophers have written about the fact that blacks can never attain the same noble standing as the white man, can't aspire to his level of culture, intelligence, etc. H.L. Mencken wrote as recently as 1910: " "I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him." I'm reading Uncle Tom's Cabin right now, and that basic thinking comes up on the first few pages already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:13:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There have been some good replies in this post - thanks. It is something that has always bothered me, thinking "How can you reconcile the love for neighbor with the ruthless enslavement of a person?" There are only few answers that really lend themselves to this situation, and the one that I keep coming back to is a favorite of humanity from throughout history: You simply don't think of them as truly human. When you take that step, atrocities become much easier to justify. The Jews in Germany is a prime example of this, as are most atrocities committed by one people against another throughout history. I think there is plenty of written evidence to somewhat justify this position, as several noted philosophers have written about the fact that blacks can never attain the same noble standing as the white man, can't aspire to his level of culture, intelligence, etc. H.L. Mencken wrote as recently as 1910: " "I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him." I'm reading Uncle Tom's Cabin right now, and that basic thinking comes up on the first few pages already. A slave is one thing. A scapegoat is an entirely different type of beast. While the underlying root may be the same, at times, it is not always the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:15:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
I've been wondering about this: While many peoples throughout history have practiced slavery (and some still do), it seems that slavery is incompatible with Christianity in particular. How else does one interpret the commandment to love one another and to treat your neighbor as yourself? Yet even the early Christian church did not speak out against slavery and obviously scores of good, God-fearing people somehow managed to go to Church and live a Christian life while accepting slavery as an institution. Does anyone know of a scholarly article that deals with this? It helps to understand how slavery came about in English America. The first African slaves were seized by English pirates and sold in Jamestown. At that time they were sold as indentured servants since the English didn't have chattel slavery. Between the early 1600s and 1700 chattel slavery developed almost a step at a time, in court cases, etc. And their were moral objections, Georgia, for example, was founded as a slave free state. The fundamental issues, as I see it, was the rise of racism (due to the racial and cultural differences of black African slaves) and the fact the slave owners had property rights so they could own slaves even if their neighbors objected morally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:20:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
I've been wondering about this: While many peoples throughout history have practiced slavery (and some still do), it seems that slavery is incompatible with Christianity in particular. How else does one interpret the commandment to love one another and to treat your neighbor as yourself? Yet even the early Christian church did not speak out against slavery and obviously scores of good, God-fearing people somehow managed to go to Church and live a Christian life while accepting slavery as an institution. Does anyone know of a scholarly article that deals with this? In the 19th century, popular beliefs about race were the moral justification. Blacks were seen as something like a different species and clearly inferior, needing to be rule over and protected by superior white men. Of course, that was just a particular brand of slavery in a certain time and place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:41:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A slave is one thing. A scapegoat is an entirely different type of beast. While the underlying root may be the same, at times, it is not always the case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There have been some good replies in this post - thanks. It is something that has always bothered me, thinking "How can you reconcile the love for neighbor with the ruthless enslavement of a person?" There are only few answers that really lend themselves to this situation, and the one that I keep coming back to is a favorite of humanity from throughout history: You simply don't think of them as truly human. When you take that step, atrocities become much easier to justify. The Jews in Germany is a prime example of this, as are most atrocities committed by one people against another throughout history. I think there is plenty of written evidence to somewhat justify this position, as several noted philosophers have written about the fact that blacks can never attain the same noble standing as the white man, can't aspire to his level of culture, intelligence, etc. H.L. Mencken wrote as recently as 1910: " "I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him." I'm reading Uncle Tom's Cabin right now, and that basic thinking comes up on the first few pages already. A slave is one thing. A scapegoat is an entirely different type of beast. While the underlying root may be the same, at times, it is not always the case. Not really. At the core is the idea that some humans are more human than others simply by the manner of their birth. Once you embrace the idea that some humans are naturally and innately better than others, the rest is mere semantics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:47:37 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
I've been wondering about this: While many peoples throughout history have practiced slavery (and some still do), it seems that slavery is incompatible with Christianity in particular. How else does one interpret the commandment to love one another and to treat your neighbor as yourself? Yet even the early Christian church did not speak out against slavery and obviously scores of good, God-fearing people somehow managed to go to Church and live a Christian life while accepting slavery as an institution. Does anyone know of a scholarly article that deals with this? Slave ownership goes back to Judaism. so long as the people you enslave aren't native to your nation, it was kosher so to speak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:48:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Exodus 11:5, God didn't even care about the slaves of Egypt's first borns....wiped 'em right out.
I mean, damn, talk about a pissed off God. Anywho, I'd guess if you gave that some serious thought it might make it ok to keep one around for some farm work. Hey, at least I'm not killing the dude's kids. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:50:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Slavery means a lot of different things to a lot of different people over various cultures and time periods. It wasn't always race based. It wasn't always life long. Is serfdom a form of slavery? Is toiling all day for a small amount of pay and being stuck doing the same thing over and over (though technically free) much different than someone technically owning you and providing your care while you work their land? It used to just be an accepted lot in life. So were eunuchs. The concept that all men are created equal is more modern than the Bible. The Bible also supported women being basically second class citizens and chattel in many cases. They were supposed to be subservient to the man and silent in the temples etc. The Bible did command you treated them well, at least. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've been wondering about this: While many peoples throughout history have practiced slavery (and some still do), it seems that slavery is incompatible with Christianity in particular. How else does one interpret the commandment to love one another and to treat your neighbor as yourself? Yet even the early Christian church did not speak out against slavery and obviously scores of good, God-fearing people somehow managed to go to Church and live a Christian life while accepting slavery as an institution. Does anyone know of a scholarly article that deals with this? Slavery means a lot of different things to a lot of different people over various cultures and time periods. It wasn't always race based. It wasn't always life long. Is serfdom a form of slavery? Is toiling all day for a small amount of pay and being stuck doing the same thing over and over (though technically free) much different than someone technically owning you and providing your care while you work their land? It used to just be an accepted lot in life. So were eunuchs. The concept that all men are created equal is more modern than the Bible. The Bible also supported women being basically second class citizens and chattel in many cases. They were supposed to be subservient to the man and silent in the temples etc. The Bible did command you treated them well, at least. Most Chrisitian serfs only had to pay 10% of their product to their lords.Most people today pay more in taxes than serfs did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:53:12 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Directly, no. Indirectly, Paul tells the master to treat a slave like a brother. Would anyone wish their brother to be a slave? The Golden Rules (do unto others....) undermines slavery, and Christianity clearly embraces the Golden Rule. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: anything in the Bible that says slavery is bad? Under the golden rule, would you lord over anyone to begin with, if you would obviously not want that for yourself? That's the underpinning of the immorality of slavery, whether hard or soft. Being owned is, well, a shit position. Owning a person, even if for a duration, is coercion and force...and by most of my "no shit sherlock" moral/ethical leanings, wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 7:58:33 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: I've been wondering about this: While many peoples throughout history have practiced slavery (and some still do), it seems that slavery is incompatible with Christianity in particular. How else does one interpret the commandment to love one another and to treat your neighbor as yourself? Yet even the early Christian church did not speak out against slavery and obviously scores of good, God-fearing people somehow managed to go to Church and live a Christian life while accepting slavery as an institution. Does anyone know of a scholarly article that deals with this? It was painfully obvious " do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Any answer to the question "is slavery compatible with Christianity " longer than "no" Is from the devil I got into trouble for, a thread on this year's ago. Preachers in the south especially had to do gymnastics on this one |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:00:02 PM EDT
[#27]
If many would just read the bible they would find the answer to their questions.
Biblical slavery was quite different than many realize it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:01:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exodus 11:5, God didn't even care about the slaves of Egypt's first borns....wiped 'em right out. I mean, damn, talk about a pissed off God. Anywho, I'd guess if you gave that some serious thought it might make it ok to keep one around for some farm work. Hey, at least I'm not killing the dude's kids. Funny, you quote a verse from the Hebrew Bible regarding a thread about Christians. You sir, do not understand Christianity. hint.... Jesus Christ hadn't been born when that verse was written. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:01:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the fact that an institution didn't vigorously oppose an activity hundreds of years ago (even though it denounces it now) determines whether you attend. If you took that view of citizenship you'd live on an island nation in the South Pacific but I'd bet even they had slavery in their history so now what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is one of those things where if you take a good honest look at it you will discover something. I considered this as well as a few other things not long ago and....it didn't bode well for my continuing church participation. So the fact that an institution didn't vigorously oppose an activity hundreds of years ago (even though it denounces it now) determines whether you attend. If you took that view of citizenship you'd live on an island nation in the South Pacific but I'd bet even they had slavery in their history so now what? To be pithy, actions of Christians, to include slavery, belies the possibility of a power such as "the Holy Spirit" convicting mankind.. If sin is always sin then it always was sin. Yet it was allowed. Without the trinity the entire religion is an impossibility. So I don't attend gatherings of a false belief. This is recent, two months ago I decided this after 47 years in church. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:03:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should get off your high horse before you fall off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is one of those things where if you take a good honest look at it you will discover something. I considered this as well as a few other things not long ago and....it didn't bode well for my continuing church participation. You should get off your high horse before you fall off. You asked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:08:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Under the golden rule, would you lord over anyone to begin with, if you would obviously not want that for yourself? That's the underpinning of the immorality of slavery, whether hard or soft. Being owned is, well, a shit position. Owning a person, even if for a duration, is coercion and force...and by most of my "no shit sherlock" moral/ethical leanings, wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: anything in the Bible that says slavery is bad? Under the golden rule, would you lord over anyone to begin with, if you would obviously not want that for yourself? That's the underpinning of the immorality of slavery, whether hard or soft. Being owned is, well, a shit position. Owning a person, even if for a duration, is coercion and force...and by most of my "no shit sherlock" moral/ethical leanings, wrong. Prove to me that you are not owned by the US Government, and thereby a slave to them. You have to register to serve for them at their will (selective service). What happens when you don't pay the government taxes? They'll put you in jail. Sure, you can buy out of the slavery (renounce your citizenship), but it's expensive and you can no longer live on US soil. So long story short, we have to pay to keep what "freedom" we have. So you can say we're all slaves. And when you get down to the nitty gritty, it's not that much different than the slavery that was talked about in the Bible. We just have the luxury to live more comfortably and in more peace. It's all in the perspective man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:13:54 PM EDT
[#32]
Anti-Federailist 15 provides a bit of insight on the issue and what Cato, Brutus, Centinel and The Federal Farmer thought of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:15:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If many would just read the bible they would find the answer to their questions. Biblical slavery was quite different than many realize it is. Cite? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:15:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exodus 11:5, God didn't even care about the slaves of Egypt's first borns....wiped 'em right out. I mean, damn, talk about a pissed off God. Anywho, I'd guess if you gave that some serious thought it might make it ok to keep one around for some farm work. Hey, at least I'm not killing the dude's kids. At 7:14 when the water turned to blood, Pharaoh could have obeyed and avoided the frogs. At 8:1, when the frogs came, Pharaoh could have obeyed and avoided the lice. At 8:16 when the lice came, Pharaoh could have obeyed and avoided the flies. At 8:20 when the flies came, Pharaoh could have obeyed and avoided the death of the cattle. At 9:1 when the cattle died, Pharaoh could have obeyed and avoided the boils. At 9:8 when the boils came, Pharaoh could have obeyed and avoided the hail and fire. At 9:13 when the hail and fire came, Pharaoh could have obeyed and avoided the locusts. At 10:1 when the locusts came, Pharaoh could have obeyed and avoided the darkness. At 10:21 when the darkness came, Pharaoh could have obeyed and avoided the Death of the Firstborn. At 11:10 It was too late. If your going to accept one side as an indictment, then the other side is a defense. If The Death of the Firstborn from a mythical book is used to prosecute its deity, then the rest of the book is a defense. When the most powerful entity in existence tells His creation to do something, with ever more serious promises and delivery of punishment, its probably a good idea to obey. Or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:18:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
I've been wondering about this: While many peoples throughout history have practiced slavery (and some still do), it seems that slavery is incompatible with Christianity in particular. How else does one interpret the commandment to love one another and to treat your neighbor as yourself? Yet even the early Christian church did not speak out against slavery and obviously scores of good, God-fearing people somehow managed to go to Church and live a Christian life while accepting slavery as an institution. Does anyone know of a scholarly article that deals with this? The current lovey-dovey "slavery is bad" interpretation of the Bible is progressive (forced by secular/religious "moderate" pressure to evolve), which would be rejected outright by the VAST majority of theologians pre 1800s. Slavery was the zeitgeist of the past and it was all around. One could just look at the Southern Baptists and their stance against interracial marriage/pro-slavery and how that changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:20:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting take on it, although I think your last sentence is over the top; I imagine plenty of Louisiana slave owners were Catholics. But yeah - basically, I'd like to ask one of those slave owners from the antebellum South: "How do you explain keeping slaves in light of your Christian faith?" Catholic or not; they were people that got kicked out of France, and then kicked out of Canada. 
Teasing aside, fortunately for this discussion, we don't have to wonder. You can essentially ask that exact question via Google. Here's a pretty good one: http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/The%20religious%20justification%20of%20slavery%20before%201830.pdf They cite Leviticus 25:44-46 pretty strongly. Basically saying that, because God allowed slavery (with restrictions) at one time, and then never Himself explicitly corrected that (as Jesus changed many Laws of the Old Testament), it must still be permissible. Basically, they used Biblical Infallibility selectively to their advantage. Essentially saying, "Who are we to judge God's intentions?!" But with an obviously self-serving motive in doing so. So while my "lol, Protestants" crack was certainly a bit of a tease, it's also somewhat accurate, in that one of the main justifications for slavery in the South was a strict and literal reading of Scripture. This should, of course, be taken as an example that not all of Scripture should be heeded with a strict and literal reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:21:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There have been some good replies in this post - thanks. It is something that has always bothered me, thinking "How can you reconcile the love for neighbor with the ruthless enslavement of a person?" There are only few answers that really lend themselves to this situation, and the one that I keep coming back to is a favorite of humanity from throughout history: You simply don't think of them as truly human. When you take that step, atrocities become much easier to justify. The Jews in Germany is a prime example of this, as are most atrocities committed by one people against another throughout history. I think there is plenty of written evidence to somewhat justify this position, as several noted philosophers have written about the fact that blacks can never attain the same noble standing as the white man, can't aspire to his level of culture, intelligence, etc. H.L. Mencken wrote as recently as 1910: " "I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him." I'm reading Uncle Tom's Cabin right now, and that basic thinking comes up on the first few pages already. Pro tip - Uncle Tom's Cabin is not a documentary - it is agit-prop, just like Silent Spring, Oil! or the Jungle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:24:24 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cite? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If many would just read the bible they would find the answer to their questions. Biblical slavery was quite different than many realize it is. Cite? Start Reading |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:27:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cite? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If many would just read the bible they would find the answer to their questions. Biblical slavery was quite different than many realize it is. Cite? Doulos is given as bondservant at Romans 1:1 in the New King James, New Living has slave, KJV and ASV have servant. In Genesis 34, Joseph is the Hebrew ebed of Potiphar, and in Genesis 24 the oldest ebed has the rule of all of Abrahams household. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:34:00 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If many would just read the bible they would find the answer to their questions. Biblical slavery was quite different than many realize it is. Cite? Start Reading I'm not going to do your "research" for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:35:00 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not going to do your "research" for you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If many would just read the bible they would find the answer to their questions. Biblical slavery was quite different than many realize it is. Cite? Start Reading I'm not going to do your "research" for you. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:36:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the "problem" is that many Americans have a picture in their minds of slavery as Snidely Whiplash beating his slave (Uncle Tom) with a whip on a whim. Biblical slaves were more like indentured servants, working to pay off a debt. At the end of their service they were even given instructions on how to continue to work for their masters if they wanted too. Masters were not to mistreat their indentured servants and most did not. It was not as cut and dried as many think. Paul was talking to Christians in the Roman Empire about Roman slavery, which was a whole other animal. Slaves came from people captured after battles or when sacking cities, and they wouldn't be freed except under extraordinary circumstances. Escaped slaves were crucified. After a slave revolt on Sicily, the Romans crucified practically every slave on the island. They treated slaves like something lower than livestock, often working them to death just for the sake of working them to death. That's what Paul is telling Christian slave owners not to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:36:40 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be incorrect to say that the church never spoke out against hereditary slavery. There was a period of time wherein many American churches did not, but trying to cast the actions of some congregations in one country during a brief window of time as indicative of a global faith spanning 2000 years would be inaccurate. Speaking specifically of that small sub-set of Christendom that you refer to, it's merely an example of cognitive dissonance and rationalization. I think one of the more popular views was that blacks were untermenschen and the white man had a divine obligation to subjugate and care for them. Right on If we are going to condemn Christians for slavery, then what about the African tribes, Romans 2000 years ago, Greeks 2400 years ago, Egyptians 2000-3000 years ago, All Koreans, All Chinese, All Persians................get it? Edit: Oh yeah, one more. All southerners. We all know that every southerner in 1860 had slaves. Right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:37:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm sure that plenty of slaves were Christians.... One of Paul's books was written on behalf of a run-away slave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:38:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If many would just read the bible they would find the answer to their questions. Biblical slavery was quite different than many realize it is. Cite? Start Reading I'm not going to do your "research" for you.
I agree. With google, look it up yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:39:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. With google, look it up yourself. Well you miss where He wanted me to do His research instead of reading for himself |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:41:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you were the head of a kind, loving household, and you knew that by buying and owning a slave family you could keep them all together and keep them "safe" from a cruel master, what could we say then? Would you be evil or charitable by becoming a slave master? The sin (for lack of a better word) has already been commited. My "saving" that family does nothing but increase the market and sully myself with what I know to be wrong to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:41:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm sure that plenty of slaves were Christians.... Paul actually sent a run-away slave back to his master with a letter (epistle). Paul ask the master, Philemon to place all/any of the wrong that Onesimus had done on Paul's account. The traditional understanding is that Paul had converted a run-away slave and was sending him back to his born-again master (Philemon). It is my understanding that there was two types of Jewish slavery in the OT. The first type was Indentured (less than 7 years) to pay for a crime, a debt or to buy property (a Jew could only own another Jew for 6 years) An indentured slave could sell himself at the end of that time frame to stay with his slave family (wife and children) owned by the master. The slave was marked by having his earlobe nailed to the door jam. He then would pull away, splitting his earlobe ad marking him. The Jewish capture any Gentile prisoner could (usually) result in that person (male or female) being a slave for life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:43:31 PM EDT
[#49]
You know, this was a pretty good thread until a few people decided to make this about how Christians suck - as if slavery were a uniquely Christian phenomena.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:56:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Serf-dom was caused by a range of economic and social pressures, and I don't think that it's appropriate to call it slavery, in any event. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Christian denominations varied in their support and/or opposition to slavery. I believe that one of the reasons that slavery was never terribly common in western europe (post rome) was Christian teachings. Western Europe had serfdom, whihc was pretty much slavery, and more universal than race-based slavery ever was in North America. Serf-dom was caused by a range of economic and social pressures, and I don't think that it's appropriate to call it slavery, in any event. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
