Coragyps

Hey, all tou Razorbacks! Me too!
Haran and ex-preacher: I'm no historian, but my family history will back up ex-preacher's position. My great-great-grandfather, Ebenezer Dickey Junkin, was a Presbyterian Doctor of Divinity/ preacher/college president in Virginia in the 1840's and 50's. One of his daughters married "Stonewall" Jackson, but he was so pro-Union that he left for Pennsylvania when Va. seceded, and stopped at the border to scrape his wagon wheels free of secessionist soil, so as to not sully the Union.
One of his books, of which my mother has a copy, is an up-to-date (1850?) catechism with the subtitle "Particularly for the Instruction of Colored Persons." It gives special emphasis to the verses about "obey your masters" and such. He uses all the biblical arguments, in easy-to-understand terms, to convince slaves that slaves are what God wants them to be.
You can't pick your relatives........

Haran

NOGO, I explained my reasoning above and your attempt to redefine it does not fit. I don't feel like back-peddling to explain myself to you and render the same information that I have already yielded. I will only say that I see the Bible and most importantly Jesus speaking in ways that are incompatible with slavery regardless of what slavery was like. The reason that I begin with the slavery issue at all is because when those here bring it up, it is usually to demean Christians and Christianity as a racist, immoral, and cruel people, playing on peoples' association of these ideas with ante-bellum black slavery.

Haran

Haran

Wooooooooo.... Pig Sooooieee!!! Razorbacks!!!

Ooops... Sorry, did I just do that?

Interesting. I'm sure I probably have something similar in my background as do many of us.

It seriously sickens me to think that people who considered themselves Christians did this. I am still amazed at this kind of thing. I would call this scripture twisting. It completely misses the encompasing message of especially Jesus but Paul as well...that we are to be slaves to others and do unto others as we'd have done to us (personally, I wouldn't want to be treated as chattel...). It just doesn't add up for me like it seems to for others in this forum...

Haran

Jayhawker Soule

To suggest that the Bible is "incompatible with slavery" is ahistoric and absurd. Where are the manifestations of this incompatibility? And why are you so willing to focus on a few convenient quotes and ignore the rich tradition of embracing and legislating slavery found in the Torah?

Having a bible so malleable that it can be selectively quoted by Quaker and Klan alike seems little to be proud of.

Haran

Nice try, but that's not what I said that I'd do if you notice... I simply stated my feelings on your post. I never intended to deal with it in great detail and still do not. I have my own point of view and doubt that I will convince you of it no matter who much detail I provide.

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!

[quote]
<strong>Wallace is a textual critic and expert in Greek among many other related studies.

...and this gives him what expertise to write on slavery in Roman times? There he and I are on an equal footing -- we are both amatuers.</strong>

I'm not sure I'd go that far. He also teaches New Testment history, I believe. I think he is qualified to speak as he did.

[quote]
<strong>I am not interested in dissecting his textual skills, which are excellent. Rather, it is his ethical judgements, and his statements on slavery, that are at issue. It is fallacious to claim that he has authority in this area because he has some authority in another.</strong>

Point is, that he has expertise and authority in quite a few areas dealing with the New Testament (and some with the Old).

Honestly, this I did not know and am relatively surprised to discover. After doing an internet search, I believe that this is not a fact that one discovers easily. This seems to be something of a sore point and is hidden quite well. 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...

I'm not sure I understand your idea of my "morally nihilistic argument".

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. The author mentions that the average life expectancy was 20-30 years. If I read right (though quickly), their time as a slave was shorter than their average life expectancy due to manumission among other reasons.

Ok, you read that one completely wrong. Obviously we are to make changes and help people. That's found in the Bible too, ya know. However, when in a position that we ourselves are in an unjust situation that we can't do much about, we are to remember that there is a better life after death. That is what was behind this statement. But then I think you really knew that...

Now you're accusing me of plagerism?! How dare you! I come up with my own stuff. Honestly, I did not even read his article until you said this. Now I feel even more confident in my position as I am obviously not the only one who comes to the same conclusions. Thanks.

What? I suppose you could say that there should have been 100% overlap in the sense that there was "neither slave nor free" as a Christian. All were to be treated as equals in Christ.

Anyway, what I was saying at this point was that from my reading, it seems that the majority of early Christians were slaves or at least low working-class. Therefore, all the complaint seems silly to me when the very people who were stating and upholding the verses that IMHO you twist were slaves from the beginning.

Ah, but Michael, this is where a better knowledge of Greek would do you some good. What I was talking about above involves the Greek word doulos which carries the idea of slavery and service. So, yes, what I stated I believe to be correct.

Mark 10:42-45

"And Jesus called them to him and said to them, 'You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave (doulos - servant/slave) of all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.'"

Please don't tell me that Jesus was, here, supporting and endorsing people to be masters of slaves! He was telling us to serve one another and not "lord it over" others... I just find it utterly incredible how you can deny Jesus' overall message in these and other verses. I can't believe that if you were a Christian you would ignore these verses and "lord it over" people and own slaves. Please... I'm tiring of this.

Um... Thanks. I think... Perhaps, since we write so intelligently on other subjects, we don't write as stupidly as you think on these issues. Or perhaps your thinker is just a little off. Jus' kiddin'... Just poking back. Phew...

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. Period.

Glad that was amusing, we all need to laugh once in a while. However, I was completely serious and noticed that you ignored my point that there were more than likely atheist that were slave traders/owners as well.

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".

Michael, I have given a lot of thought to the atheists' point of view. Possibly some think that they will be punished in this lifetime, but not all. Besides, who would punish them if they lived in a time where slavery was acceptable? What if they could gain enormous wealth through slave trade? Why care? Because another person becomes a piece of chattel. So what? You make money. You live comfortably to die having gained the most, materially, from this world. You die and cease to exist. No judgement for your actions to others. They suffered through life while you gained, but that's ok because there is no judgement and no punishment. It simply was. No. I cannot see why atheists think they can decry the morals of Christians when their own is, at the least, no better.

Sincerely,
Haran

Haran

I'm sorry, but I whole-heartedly disagree.

Why do others here seem to ignore these "convenient" quotes?

I am being told that my beliefs as a Christian support and encourage slavery. I am saying baloney with textual proof.

I don't believe that I am ignoring the Torah, as a matter of fact, I believe that I am summing it up just as Jesus said:

Matthew 7:12-16a

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them.

Many nominal Christians make the Bible say what they want. Few follow the words and example of their savior, Jesus.

Haran

ex-preacher

As do many committed Christians such as yourself. If you cannot see that the Bible in both Testaments fully supports and endorses slavery, then you are in deep denial. You have focused in on a few verses that could be taken as neutral towards slavery and have ignored the vast number of texts which support (and sometimes even command) slavery. Needless to say, there are no verses that explicitly condemn slavery.

The best you can do is take vague general principles (do unto others or "neither slave nor free") and then infer that no Christian could practice slavery. Yet you are ignoring the clear fact that Christians in the Bible DID practice slavery. Christians read the Bible and practiced slavery for 1800 years.

I predict that 100 years from now most Christians will claim that no true Christian ever frowned on homosexuality because of the same general verses that you spout. They also will insist that the "neither male nor female" passage supports transgenderism. Such is the flexibility of the document which you claim is from God.

Let me ask you to do 2 things, Haran.

1. Get out a concordance and find every passage in the Bible that mentions slaves or slavery (or the more politically correct term that you prefer "servant"). Then read every one.

2. Do some research on why Christians for 1800 years were utterly convinced that the Bible endorsed and even encouraged slavery.

Then come back.

Haran

I suppose you're a Texan at heart then? Anyway, I just heard today that Nolan Richardson was fired as coach of the UofA BBall team for remarks he made. Hate to see him go... Apparently there are some who do not...

Glad to know your field is history and I appreciate your insights.

I appreciate this, but I still feel that blaming the Bible as immoral is just as incorrect.

You know that people can do this with anything. People twist the law and the constitution, many of them twist it away from the intended spirit and make a mockery of it (both Christian and non-Christian alike).

Funny, that. I definitely have the opposite view. I don't understand how anyone can read it and come to the view that you and others here have.

Again, as an ex-preacher, you know that the patriarchs and others in the Bible did things that they weren't supposed to do.

Jesus even points out a situation in Mark 10:2-9:

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses [note that it was Moses and not God] permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Specifically about slavery? No. Specifically about many other things? No. Indirectly? Yes, obviously. His teachings were meant to be applied to all situations. He spoke, as I mentioned to Michael, that Christians are to be slaves/servants to all others in a spirit of helpfulness and equality and not to "lord it over" others. Does this really sound to you like Jesus was telling them to go out and own slaves? I don't at all. Quite the opposite. If people should be servants to one another, and none are to "lord it over" others, then it's kind of hard to have slaves.

This line of thinking is very tiring to me. Paul and Peter considered themselves slaves to others and to Christ. Do you really think that this meant that they thought others should "lord it over" people? I certainly don't. I especially don't see this when Paul speaks of "neither free nor slave". I don't see this when he speaks in Philemon 15-22 either:

15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good--
16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.
18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.
19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back-- not to mention that you owe me your very self.
20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.
21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask [I believe that this possibly means manumission].
22 And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers [Hmmm... Sounds to me like Paul was going to check up and make sure of good treatment and possible release].

I think you said the following among other similar things:

The only reason that Christians bring up the subject of Roman slavery is to somehow mitigate the Bible?s responsibility for the horror of African slavery practiced by Christians from the 17th to the 19th centuries.

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

Poppycock? It is only a "cop-out" because you define it so and it does makes me feel better because it is true, IMO. I have given you and others numerous examples that I believe represent the whole character of the Bible. I am no more "practicing an incredibly selective reading of scripture" than you yourselves are. As a matter of fact, I believe that I am quite in line with Jesus' teaching and what many other Christians have to say.

I appreciate you pointing this book out. I am interested to read some of these works because, honestly, I do not know what these "Christians" had to say about slavery. However, you can find out what I think of this by reading some of my others posts above if you haven't already.

Let me see... We shouldn't "lord it over" others and we should be "slaves/sevants" to others (kinda hard to be a slave owner if you're a slave BTW). If we are a slave, we are to accept freedom if the opportunity arises. We shouldn't become slaves of men (according to Paul). We should treat people as if there is "neither free nor slave". Finally, the ultimate Christian authority, Jesus, constantly speaks of good will toward others and gives the golden rule of doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Since I doubt that there is anyone who intentionally wants to be a slave, it is kind of hard to simply dismiss the golden rule which was stated to be the "sum" of "The Law". Phew! Now, who exactly is practicing selective reading???

Umph... That hurt, ex... I assure you that I am familiar with the Bible, the manuscripts and languages that underlie it, and much of its history. I've looked up "slave" in every instance using Bibleworks software...

As it is for me... I have studied other religions and many other related things. I wouldn't be having discussions on an Atheist website if I didn't try to consider all sides of an issue. I simply feel that you are wrong here.

That was some kind of spin, but I don't think you really believe that is what I meant. Perhaps I was being a little sarcastic and intending the meaning that if Christians are doing any rewriting at all, it is only to correct the errors of others who have rewritten history to blaame Christians as the instigators and perpetuators of slavery. I think you knew that though...

*Sigh* I'm sure there will be replies, but I have stated most of what I believe. I can attempt to clarify for everyone, but I don't feel like writing this many prolix posts again. Perhaps snippets. I personally believe the Bible and the words of Jesus stand for themselves, so I will only attempt to point this out a few times before "shaking the dust of my feet" and continuing on. I, as a Christian, will never "lord it over" anyone, nor treat someone as a slave since I do not wish to be treated this way. I have Bible backing straight from Christ for these beliefs and do not believe that the Bible can in any honest manner be used to encourage slavery, especially that of America's recent past.

I wish I had the time to continue this kind of discussion. It is interesting, but incredibly time consuming... Thanks for listening. At least you have both listened to my views whether you disagree or not. I appreciate that. Continue to challenge your beliefs though and don't think always think that you have all the answers either.

Haran

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

excreationist

For a list of relevant Bible passages and concise commentaries on it, see my thread at
<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000458&p=" target="_blank">BaptistBoard - Slavery and the Bible</a>
In it, I talk about 2 types of slavery - the temporary slavery of Hebrews (which are called servants in the NIV) and the permanent slavery of the non-Hebrews (called slaves in the NIV). In that thread I show that the brutal treatment of slaves was explicitly permitted by God in his laws given to Moses.
BTW, black slavery had been happening since at least about the 1500's. And I think there was also slavery (serfdom?) right through the Middle Ages. It was only in the past 150 years or so that slavery was abolished.

Haran:
Mark 10:2-9 talks about *divorce*. Paul agrees with Jesus on this issue. But Paul repeatedly permits slavery throughout his writings. And he never hints that it is wrong or that slaves could be freed. Surely Christians would be able to make a small sacrifice like that. Paul even says in Titus 2:9-10 that people should teach slaves to be completely faithful to their masters and not turn back. That doesn't sound like a very equal relationship.
In 1 Timothy 6:1-2 Paul says that slaves should serve believing masters even better so the unequal relationship is increased.
In Colossians 3:22 and Ephesians 6:5-9 Paul tells slaves to faithfully obey their masters even when they aren't looking.
In 1 Peter 2:18-21, Paul says:
So can you find any verses in the Bible that say that slavery is immoral? Do you think that using a passage on divorce, when Paul permits slavery (and Jesus seems to too), is out of context?

NOGO

When I read this I remember how easily well meaning and beatifully written laws about human rights can mean nothing unless they apply to all.
That is the way a country with laws warrantying the rights of its people can have slaves. It's simple, slaves are not people.

Jesus is giving rules for his disciples to follow among themselves. The question is this.
Did he mean it for everybody?
I say no. Just look at these verses.

Mt 15
24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.''
25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, ""Lord, help me!''
26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.''

At best what you are pointing to as clear evidence that Jesus was against slavery is in fact neutral.

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