Vorkosigan

This implies, to me, that only Christians practiced slavery during this time period. The wording here is awfully strong. It paints the same picture that I have been complaining about all along...that Christians are racist and cruel people who practiced the horrible African slavery of the 17th to 19th centuries.

What do I think Atheists being involved has to do with anything? I think it means that "Christians" weren't the only ones responsible for propagating it.

Haran, please, how many atheists do you think there were involved in the Atlantic Slave trade? The answer would be about zero. For one thing, there were hardly any atheists prior to the 18th century, and not very many since. Do you think anyone who landed on the coast of Africa and took slaves in the 16th century was an atheist? Highly doubtful! The vast, vast majority of buyers, sellers and transporters were Christians of one flavor or another.

Also the slave trade was begun in the 1450s, not the 1600s. By Portugese Christians.

Just for the record: attendence at Church services in the slaving ships of John Hawkins in the 1560s was mandatory, and his relative Francis Drake captained one the ships, with splendidly named The Grace of God. On another voyage, in 1567, Hawkins himself sailed in the massive Jesus of Lubeck with Angel.

Also, that, as I stated to Michael, I don't see how an atheist can logically complain about the morals of a Christian...

Not a topic for this forum.

Phew! Dishonest or incompetent... Sounds like you're not giving much breathing room, rhetorically speaking. I happen to believe that he is competent, honest, and a real nice guy!

I am certain from the many encomiums I have encountered, that he is a really nice guy. However, he has clearly incompetently researched the topic, or he has lied about it. There isn't any third choice. He teaches NT-related courses. This may well give him a modicum of expertise in the area of Roman slavery. If so, then why is he so blantantly wrong about it? So often with apologists, Haran, we are forced into the "malice vs. incompetence" dilemma when view apologetics. Why do you think this is? Personally, I prefer the "incompetence" explanation, perhaps caused by an overdose of ideology.

Keep in mind that I have lived in areas where these things happened (including Kenner/New Orleans La) and have never heard of them before now...

Hmmm, I sort of figured it was common knowledge down there, never having been there. I found out because a colleague in the program at RPI did a presentation on a black female plantation owner.

As I mentioned in the post to ex-preacher, the majority of people during that time referred to themselves as Christians then whether they truly believed or not. I always hear atheists ask how Christians know that those claiming to be Christian weren't. I'd like to ask how you know for sure that they were. They don't seem to have been acting as Jesus acted to me. They apparently wanted "to be served" and not "to serve".

Haran, I do not know what a "true christian" is. I only know that all Christians I meet insist that they are and others aren't. Anyone who says he's a Christian, is one, AFAIK. I have no way of getting into the minds of slaveowners and judging their beliefs. But I do know that practically all professed Christianity.

Aside from that, I will take issue with this life expectancy of ten years. I assumed that you would read the scholarly source that I gave you, but you seem not to have.

I was hoping YOU would read the source I gave you, which has the following sentence...

Field hands were given a life expectancy of about ten years due to the physical exhaustion they encountered on a daily basis.

I have no idea what the life expectancy of a slave in the galleys was (3 years?) or mines or construction gangs, but it can't have been as good as that of a field hand, who could slough off work and sneak food.

Perhaps, since we write so intelligently on other subjects, we don't write as stupidly as you think on these issues.

No, Haran, I thought your writing on texts is great and enjoy reading it. I won't master greek -- Chinese is tough enough for one lifetime! But when Christians attempt to defend Paul's/Bible's position on slavery, it makes me cringe to watch otherwise intelligent and loving people twist themselves into moral knotted breadsticks while simultaneously shutting their eyes to the blindingly obvious. I think Wallace shouldn't even be writing formally on ethical issues, but should stick to the textual stuff he has an obvious mastery of, and a gift for conveying in easygoing and clear language.

Once again, a valid verse opposing elements crucial to slavery's perpetual existence is simply dismissed and brushed aside. You can't just throw these out and claim to be unbiased. Sorry. I do not believe the Bible supports or encourages slavery.

Well, for 1800 years, the vast majority of Christians ignored or explained away this "valid verse." For that matter, Isaiah condemns slavery. All was brushed aside by Christians eager to profit from the slave trade. But why not read the Thomas book above?

BTW, here's a paragraph from a biography of Drake by Kelsey (p. 33), on how time was killed on the 7-8 week run on the slave trade:

In addition to all this, every morning between 7 and 8 o'clock and again when the watch changed at nightfall, the mate William Saunders gathered all the men before the mainmast and had them kneel to recite Psalms, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed. On Sunday morning at 8 they said the same prayers and someone who was literate read the Epistles and the Gospels appointed for that day. Saunders, or sometimes Barrett or Hawkins, then gave a homily, reading from the Paraphrases of Erasmus, then expanding upon the theme in his own words. The whole observance took forty-five minutes or an hour. The same thing was done on each of the other ships in the fleet, and when time allowed, the Sunday observances were also read.

Michael

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps we are using the term "incompatible" differently: the history of religion is a history of its enabling of, and coexistence with, slavery. This is hardly a history of incompatibility. (*)

As for the Torah, before 'summarizing' by quoting Jesus, perhaps you could speak to Numbers 31.

(*) [edited to add the following ...] On the other hand, I would strongly disagree with anyone who might suggest that your "beliefs as a Christian support and encourage slavery". The Quakers, for example, did what they did because of their religion, not in spite of it. They are far from alone in this regard.

But yours is a schizophrenic religion. It endorses (actually, demands) the genocide of the Midianites and the enslavement of some 32,000 Midianite virgins, while applauding the golden rule. It seems to me that a religion so compatible with both slavery and abolitionism suggests a social institution rather than a divine revelation. Without any sarcasm intended, one would have thought that your God could have done better than this.

Again, please speak to Numbers 31.

Thanks - RD

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

excreationist

The NIV and NLT translate this as "slave traders", the <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1TIM+1:10&language=english&version=N IV-IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on" target="_blank">other translations</a> translate this as "kidnappers" or "men-stealers".
Paul would be referring to the OT law.
e.g.
Exodus 21:16 - "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."

Deuteronomy 24:7 - "If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you."

There were other ways people could get slaves besides kidnapping - e.g. war conquests, buy foreign slaves, buy people who sold themselves or their children into slavery, etc.

TollHouse

tutonm and ex-preacher (and others):

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to this thread. It has been quite helpful.

Alexis Comnenus

Hello,

Can anyone recommend something a bit more in depth on this question of southern versus Roman slavery? I had this argument with someone of liberal persuasion who had picked up southern slavery being worse from Black history rather than evangelicals (odd bed fellows). All the stuff I can find on the net with any detail in it is Christian like this:

<a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html" target="_blank">http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html</a>

I am not interested in arguments over biblical support for slavery. That people of the time had different views to us seems hardly worth arguing about.

Regards

Alex

Vorkosigan

All you have to do is read a good history of Roman slavery. And then of southern slavery. There is very little to choose between them. Of the two, southerners were probably the better. For slaves lived longer, and worked less, had time off, often had their own gardens, and could earn money, though the actual conditions varied, In S. Carolina, where slaves outnumbered whites, they owned businesses, though that was technically illegal.

In Rome, only a tiny minority of slaves were house slaves with some kind of rights. The vast majority worked in fields, mines, ships, forests, construction gangs, shops, public works gangs, and so on. Their lives were living hell, which is why revolts were so common among the rural slaves.

Michael

ex-preacher

One book that makes the argument that Southern slavery was relatively mild is Fogel and Engermann's "Time on the Cross." This book has been quite controversial, but also influential. Most of the literature in this field compares Southern slavery to slavery in the Caribbean and Brazil, not ancient Rome.

edited to add: The abolitionists of 1830-1860 argued vociferously that Southern slavery was far worse than ancient slavery. Why were they motivated to argue this way? To make a distinction between the "mild" slavery sanctioned by the Bible, and the terrible slavery practiced in the South. IOW, they were trying to rescue the Bible from itself, and save themselves from the charge of atheism. Proslavery apologists routinely accused anti-slavery advocates of being atheists (a charge that was sometimes true!).

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: ex-preacher ]</p>

excreationist

ex-preacher:
Could you list more book titles on that subject - especially ones that are widely respected and seen as quite authoritative. Or books that cover this subject in some of its chapters.

Alexis Comnenus

Yes, this would be helpful.

Alex

Sojourner553

___________________________________________
Can anyone recommend something a bit more in depth on this question of southern versus Roman slavery? Alexis
______________________________________________


The KEY difference is that slavery in Roman times did not have a racial element. Anyone could be a slave -- and a slave could as easily be white as black. If a black slave was freed, he could live in Roman society without the stigma of being considered "inferior" or worse, snatched back into slavery merely because of the color of his or her skin.

This is the reason why the issue of whether Roman slavery vs Christian slavery was "worse or not" in terms of harshness-- is really not so relevant. Because a lot of this depended on the individual -- whether you were a household vs field slave, your master, etc, etc.

There were always "good" -- even wonderful Christian slaveholders!!!
The problem is that there were "mean" Christian slaveholders as well. And the MAIN issue here is that there were NO specific biblical verses that "good" Christian slaveholders and abolitionists could use to convince what I'll term the "bad" Christian slaveholders on how to humanely treat or emancipate their slaves. (For all the pro verses in the Bible on treating slaves well, slaveholders could find opposing verses.)


Details below taken from:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/SLAVE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/SLAVE.TXT</a>

generally

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>


***********
"Slavery is an institution that virtually all ancient civilizations have engaged in. The ancient Jews held slaves-- as did the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. Still, during ancient times, the institution of slavery in these societies did NOT typically have the strict cultural or racial bias (ie a "dark" vs. "light" skin color bias)--that would emerge in Christianized Europe and the Americas.

Instead, ancient slaves could be local --from debtors, or children bought from or abandoned by their parents. Slaves could also be foreign born -- normally resulting from prisoners of war. These latter, foreign born slaves often experienced treatment that was more harsh than given to native born slaves. Still, masters might free their slaves. In ancient Rome, an industrious slave could even aspire to become a citizen of the empire (although in Greek city-states such as classical Athens, freed slaves were forbidden the option of receiving citizenship.)

***

[Again, it is the RACIAL nature of Southern US slavery that is so repulsive to blacks -- because this is in effect a doomed sentence just from the color of their skin.

The Ham myth from Genesis 9:21-27 was perverted by Christian whites to mean that it was part of God's plan that blacks should be servants (or slaves) to the other races!!!!

This is no small matter -- my own mother taught me this myth as true when I was a child. I first learned from Isaac Asimov in college that the Ham myth never states everywhere that he had black skin or came from Africa. It was just conveniently "interpreted" this way].]

***************

The Ten Commandments does not include prohibitions against EITHER slavery or torture.

This was seen as license by Southern slaveholders to deal with the slaves as they saw fit.

What about the Golden Rule, you might ask?

"It was argued that the emancipation of slaves
was contrary to the spirit of the Golden Rule, as the black man could never hope to compete in the real world with the white man. That is, the "best"
state, or condition for the black man to be in, was for the white man to "protect" him through bondage.

Frederick Douglas once sadly commented on how even other blacks he had met, had been indoctrinated with this belief:

"I have met many religious colored people, at the South, who are under the delusion that God requires them to submit to slavery and wear chains with meekness and humility."


[Just to show how repulsive the racial element was to admittedly a small # of fundamentalist Christians (ie this was too repulsive for even most fundamentalist Christians -- still the ability to argue it at all was...well I'll let you read it).]

**********

"Truly the most offensive and bigoted work resulting from the Ham myth, occurred shortly after the Civil War with Buckner H. Payne's 1867 work, THE NEGRO: WHAT IS HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS? Payne's book is an example of
where a lie can take on a life all of its own. For in trying to EXPLAIN how blacks had evolved differently from whites, Payne concluded that blacks were on Noah's ark -- not as humans, but instead as two of the beasts.
Thus to Payne, blacks were animals that did not have a soul! "


****************
Actually, I think the more relevant issue for blacks is whether Muslims were more humane on the issue of slavery than Christians! (I tend to believe this is one main reason why Muslims fare well in Africa today vis-a-vis Christianity)


"Muhammad's position on slavery was similar to Christians. He did not condemn slavery, yet he taught that masters should treat their slaves
humanely. He also taught that the emancipation of slaves by their masters was a pious and virtuous act. Muslims generally did NOT maintain the strictly racial attitude towards slaves, that was to become so rigid in Western Christendom. (For example, some white Christian plantation owners had sex with their slaves, and would later sell their children off as new "slaves".) Christian slavery tended to be (relatively speaking) more cruel than that under the Muslims. On the positive side, Christian societies also outlawed
the institution of slavery before the Muslims.

The institution of slavery existed during medieval times. During the 8th to 10th centuries, Germans captured a large number of Slavs (from which evolved the word "slave"). During the Crusades, both Muslims and Christians made
slaves out of prisoners of war. Christians developed special charities to redeem Crusader prisoners of war from being enslaved. Wars between Christians and Muslims in Spain and Portugal, led to serious labor shortages in these areas by the early fifteenth century.

The devastations of the bubonic plagues and other diseases had created a severe shortage of agricultural and domestic workers during the later
Middle Ages. The Italian city-states engaged in a lucrative trade with Constantinople, which brought in WHITE slaves from the Balkans, Thrace,
southern Russia, and central Anatolia for resale in the West. With the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the flow of white slaves from these regions
was cut off, leading to a demand for a new source.

Beginnings of the BLACK Slave Trade in Western Civilization

Blacks were first brought to Europe as slaves in 1434 by Portuguese seafarers under Prince Henry the Navigator. Henry had bartered with Muslim Arabs for slaves in exchange for Moorish prisoners. Black slaves became popular in the vineyards and sugar plantations of Sicily and Majorca. In this way, the Mediterranean area developed the black plantation style of
slavery, that would be carried over into the Americas, subsequent to its discovery by Columbus in 1492.

In 1462, Pope Pius II condemned the inherent evils of the slave trade in Europe. Still, he did NOT prohibit it! In this ambivalence, one can possibly see the powerful paradigm of Augustine's doctrine on the nature of man. In his CITY OF GOD, St. Augustine, had directly addressed the issue of slavery. According to Augustine, slavery was not the natural state of God's original
creation-- nevertheless it was to be tolerated in this imperfect world of human institutions, as one of the evil side-effects of man's Fall from grace into sin. (Augustine, CITY OF GOD 19.15) Augustine had also argued that the slaves could look forward to being specially rewarded in heaven, for any virtuous suffering in this life.

The newly discovered American and Caribbean colonies generated a great demand for manual labor. The Spaniards attempted to resolve the problem by first enslaving the native Indians. However, Indians did not begin to meet the vast demand for cheap labor (plus they died too easily in captivity from diseases). Consequently the European colonists in both North and South America, began increasingly to import black slaves from Africa. It has been estimated that perhaps as many as 10 million Africans were ransported to the New World, with 2 million of these dying during their journey from the dirty, crowded conditions of the slave ships. Both Catholics and Protestants owned slaves.

Later, as pressure mounted in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for the emancipation of blacks, Catholic leaders--as with their Protestant
counterparts-- would publicly condemn bondage, while generally accepting the institution itself. Europeans looked for a justification of slavery--
so that even Indians and blacks who converted to Christianity could be deemed inferior to whites due to their skin color--and therefore "deserving"
of slavery."


_________________

Hope that helps!

--Sojourner