Equinox

So you agree with the view of Christianity for 1500 years, that slavery is OK because it was institued by Righteous Noah, is found throughout the Bible and never condemned (including in the words of Jesus), and was supported by both Catholic and Protestant churches until after the Enlightenment?

Augustine was free to write in condemnation of anything he saw as wrong. We have book after book by him, condeming all kinds of things (including simply being the wrong kind of Christian). He couldn't spend a couple minutes to write five words to point out that slavery is immoral? Of course not. He saw it as a just institution in a sinful world, as you point out.

I'm still waiting for a simple answer from you about whether or not you approve of slavery for the traditional Christians reasons laid out above.

I think we are seeing here the moral bankrupcy of the Christian position. When faced with the obvious evil of slavery, Christians first defend it, then try to change the meaning of words in their own Bible (which they at least say they respect), and then add things to their Bibles as needed (such as Onesimus was a theif?), finally refusing to answer direct questions, instead seeking to distract (such as by bringing up child molesters) from the original question.

And some wonder why many of us on this board see dogmatic Christianity as a destroyer of rational thought, morality and human values.

Equinox

bacht

Compared to whom? Pagans of the 1st-4th C? Eastern Orthodox Greeks? Rabbinic Judaism? Non-Abrahamic traditions? Celts and Teutons? New World savages? Post-Reformation Protestants? Post-Enlightenment modernists? Marxists?

sschlichter

That is about as hypocritical a position as exists. Onesimus was in prison for some reason with Paul. Was Paul a prison guard that put him in prison? Pual offered to pay for any wrong doing that Onesimus may have done. That is all I said. You on the other hand, assumed he was not a theif and that he is wrongfully enslaved.

If you like direct questions then answer mine. Should a child molester be denied his right to freedom?

If your view of human values is so absuolute then why not answer the question?

Equinox

Steve wrote:

No, I questioned your assumption that his slavery was justified. Your statement above implies that you see slavery as sometimes justified. I'm still waiting to see if you agree with the traditional Christian cases where slavery is justified.

I agree that child molesters should be punished. Punishment is not slavery. For instance, if a child molester is serving a prison sentence, it is not permissible to beat him senseless on your whim. On the other hand, beating your slave senseless is permitted by the Bible.

Do you agree that Paul saw nothing inherently wrong with slavery, and that Paul violated Dt in sending an escaped slave back to his owner? Note that Dt does not put conditions on why the slave ran away or such.

Do you, Steve, think it is a coincidence that the heir of Ham, whose race is foretold to be enslaved, is named "black" in Gen 10:6?

Equinox

Stephen T-B

"Should a child molester be denied his right to freedom? " (sschlichter)

Should a child molester be denied his right to freedom- and enslaved? And his children enslaved?

Further, how can someone sold in a slave market in any way be compared with a child molester?

The squirming we see here is very very illuminating

Equinox

bact, for something to be morally reprensible, it need not be compared to anyone. For instance, torture is morally wrong. I don't care who does it. I'd guess you don't either. What I'm pointing out is that for someone, anyone, to hold that Christianity has not justified slavery, and at the same time dance around to defend their support of slavery, is a morally bankrupt position. That's not to say that many progressive Christians have learned to abandon much of their Bible so as to come to a moral position. Many have, and that's better than holding an immoral position.

Does that make my post clearer?

Thanks-

Equinox

sschlichter

So, you do not have the guts to answer the question. The answer, of course is that there are conditions under which it is moral to imprison someone and force therm to work. There are also conditions of destitution where it is lawful to allow someone to sell themselves into servitude. I sold myself into the Army for 3 years. I gave up many rights (including the right to leave) and in exchange I was cared for, fed, and trained. Occassionally, I was punished.

The conditions in prior times are difficult for some to gather because they are incapable of spanning geographic, cultural, and language barriers but here are a couple absolutes.

You are not to kidnap people to make slaves of them.

You are not to abuse them. If you do, you will be punished.

That rules out the notion of slavery that you have in your machinations - apparently, the only form of servitude that you can conceive of. You like invoking the word slavery because it draws recent images of Americans enslavement of Africans and you feel that helps your bent cause. It is called pandering.

The slavery condoned in the OT looks nothing like this. Otherwise, you could just find a passage that does exactly what you are saying and not have to rely on your imagination (or lack thereof). Consider Abrahams 318 servants. Were they slaves? Why was one of them going to inherit everything Abraham owned?

~Steve

Equinox

Steve wrote:
So, you do not have the guts to answer the question. The answer, of course is that there are conditions under which it is moral to imprison someone and force therm to work.

Sure I did - I agreed that it's OK to imprision someone for a crime, but not OK to beat them, own them and their descendants, etc - all of which the Bible or traditional Christianity says is fine. You have failed to answer my question about whether it is OK to beat a slave sensless several times.

Define "abuse", in the OT context. Clearly, beating senseless is fine, so abuse must be killing, which is not allowed. Sure, those absolutes are better than nothing, but still morally corrupt. So, in your view, it's OK to enslave those taken in war? That is the order of the day in Bible as well.

Machinations? What do you think I am, a gadianton robber? I'm simply pointing out a moral wrong, that some are defending because they are so tied to the outdated writings of some bronze age theocrats that they seem to have lost their moral compasses.


No, it's calling a spade a spade. Throughout the early 1800s the supporters of slavery in the US south also worked hard to portray slavery as a comfortable, fair and kind situation that the African Americans wanted to stay in. Your actions are little different. I'm still waiting on your view of Ham's heir being named "black", as well as other questions. Slavery in both testaments is shown to be a situation where severe beatings are fine. Do you agree?

I'm also waiting on whether you agree that Paul saw slaves as property (since we appear to agree he isn't just following a law he sees as immoral), and whether or not you agree that Augustine saw the continuation of slavery as OK.


Equinox

bacht

If contemporary Christians are not calling for the re-institution of slavery I don't see the point of judging their ancestors.

Scripture literalists will bend over backwards to preserve the apparent meaning of the text, we all know that. They usually include some notion of moral absolutism: the Word is true for all times and places.

Morality has never been absolute, there's always a social/cultural context. There might even be cases where torture is justified; I've never considered the problem.

Equinox

bact wrote:
I agree. In fact, it would be our Ancestors as much as theirs, many of us have common ancestry, just due to the math.

No, what I'm objecting to is contemporary fundamentalists who argue that their word of God is good for all times, and so squirm all over in trying to justify the vicious parts of the Bible, instead of just being honest and agreeing that this is yet another example where the Bible is just plain harmful and immoral. The point is I'm not judging anyone's Ancestors, but rather the actions and reasoning of people today, who we can talk with.

I suspect we might agree on that point.

All the best-

Equinox