Christianity Has Had No Effect Whatsoever On Human Morality

[joe1776]

As the OP itself shows, Christianity has had an effect on morality. It slowed its natural development by encouraging a passive obedience to rules and expectations.

I'm guessing that you are making more of an issue of the influence of church leaders and their most devoted followers than I do. My focus was on the moral progress of humanity as a whole.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...then to imagine all of slavery is invented in the Bible and by Christianity!

That's a strawman argument. I said that slavery pre-existed the Bible in the cultures of its writers.

The OP claims that the Bible condones slavery and that the church leaders following scripture see nothing immoral in slavery. Both statements are wrong. First because I make the point that Church leaders do not follow scripture. They quote it, but it is not an instruction manual. Second its wrong because the Bible is a library which does not declare a purpose for itself. Rather it is many books and letters and is incomprehensible without additional information -- a lot of additional information. If someone claims to make sense of it without additional information they are somehow oblivious to what they have added.

...Nowhere in the Bible is there a statement that declares what the Bible is for.

If the Bible gives moral instruction, is it not fair to assume that one of its purposes is to give moral instruction?

Not at all. First the Bible is a library of records. Second some of those records are not written for everyone. Thirds they also are not explained in the Bible. To take the Bible out of its culture and then to treat it as moral instruction is foolish. It is like reading someone else's mail or listening to half of a phone call. Leaders who do this are responsible for their own choices, and followers who follow them are unfortunate.

Today even where there is slavery people have at least heard of a different way of life. They now know that life doesn't have to include slavery. That's because of Christianity not in spite of it.

You're trying to give Christianity credit for the achievement of conscience, the moral instincts that all of us have.

Not at all. Conscience failed to overcome slavery for millennia before Christianity and still is failing today. Slavery is not gone, but where Christianity is, slavery is reviled. So much for conscience ending slavery. Rather, the conscience is shown to be corruptible, but the OP seems to be blissfully unaware of it.

 

[bobhikes]

I'm convinced that if we humans are given the same set of facts in a specific moral situation, and we are free of biases, we will make the same moral judgment. However, the cultural and traditional biases are many, so it's the "free of bias" part that makes my theory hard to prove.

For example, we can create a bias by making up moral laws and rules: "I think abortion is murder" is a moral rule that creates a bias. When we hear the facts in a clear case of murder, we immediately feel moral outrage. That is followed by a desire to see the killer punished. When that desire to punish the killer is missing, as it is in the pro-life argument, we know that the reasoning mind created a bias that misled judgment.

If Christians interpret "You should not kill" as an absolute rule, they create a bias which will throw judgment off course in a clear case of a killing in self-defense. Again, the impulse to see the killer punished will be missing.

Each of us has our own beliefs my beliefs disagree with yours.

 

[joe1776]

That's the beauty of human stories such as Christianity, some people can take the useful ideas and make them into something worthwhile, while ditching what ain't real or worthy.

I think the concepts of mercy and repentance comes from Christianity mostly. And people incorporate their own ideas of what that means or how far they'll go with it.

I could be wrong.

I have a vivid memory of meeting with a Catholic priest at seven years old. He told me about God and about Heaven and Hell. He added that only Catholics would go to Heaven. Protestants were headed for Hell. I remember feeling compassion for those poor Protestants.

My parents didn't teach me compassion. The Church didn't teach me compassion. I was born with it.

The Church has made moral progress since then. They now officially allow that even Jews and Protestants have a shot at heaven.

 

[Quintessence]

I think my argument is just fine for this forum.

I'm not sure what your argument is. You start with a thread title that proposes "Christianity has no effect whatsoever on human morality." Setting aside that such a sweeping generalization is nonsense from the gate, in the opening post you talk only about a specific aspect of human culture that has been moralized: slavery. Then, within that post, you give some examples of Christianity impacting human morality! These inconsistencies left me scratching my head and wondering "okay, what the heck is this guy really asking about anyway?" Now you've thrown this "moral advancement" stuff and I'm even more lost regarding what your argument is supposed to be. I don't know if you're deliberately moving the goal posts here or what.

Regardless, I don't have a horse in this race. If what you really wanted this thread to be about is this weird "moral advancement" idea you presented, then I doubly don't have a horse in this race. I wouldn't be the one to feed you examples of... whatever it is that you're trying to argue.

 

[osgart]

I have a vivid memory of meeting with a Catholic priest at seven years old. He told me about God and about Heaven and Hell. He added that only Catholics would go to Heaven. Protestants were headed for Hell. I remember feeling compassion for those poor Protestants.

My parents didn't teach me compassion. The Church didn't teach me compassion. I was born with it.

The Church has made moral progress since then. They now officially allow that even Jews and Protestants have a shot at heaven.

I don't think everyone is born with compassion.

I was born with an idealistic sense of love, and I learned compassion over time.

 

[Vouthon]

@joe1776 Your hypothesis: Christianity Has Had No Effect Whatsoever On Human Morality"

OK, let's test this claim against a piece of historical evidence.

Evidence: The church changed the perception of rape

The church changed the perception of rape

In the Middle Ages the Danish church changed the perception of rape from vandalism against a man’s property to a crime against the raped women

Destroying another man’s clothes, injuring his cattle and raping his wife. These three acts, which viewed through modern eyes seem highly different, were all considered vandalism against a man’s property in the early Middle Ages.

Thanks to the Catholic Church, however, this weird view changed during the Middle Ages,

In line with the church gaining influence on society, helped along by cultural trends, the judicial perception of raped women changed.

Suddenly women were regarded as individuals who should be compensated by the rapist for the injuries he had caused.

Helle Møller Sigh, a researcher at the Department of Culture and Society at Aarhus University, has studied the Danish versions of the Norse Laws, which were written down between the 1170s and the 1240s.

“We’re seeing a change in the legislation, in which rape goes from being a violation against the household – the woman’s husband or her father – to being listed as a separate crime which violates the woman,” she says.

“This is in no small way due to the influence of the Catholic Church, which wanted to create a peaceful and civilised society and help the weak, including women.”

Before the Catholic Church started to gain influence on Danish culture in the Middle Ages, women were commonly regarded as a man’s property.

In the so-called ‘Scanian Law’ the rape of a woman was naturally considered as vandalism. So it was the husband of the raped woman who should be compensated by the rapist – not the raped woman.​

A second piece of corroborating evidence from a different medieval legal code, from sscholar Maria Eriksson in her study, "Defining Rape":

Defining Rape: Emerging Obligations for States Under International Law?

"...In the 12th century the church legislators were the first to recognize the victim as an independent legal person, without reference to her social rank or guardian" The principle of personal responsibility was embraced by the Church...which began to transform legal conceptions of sexual violence. Rape was defined as a crime against the person rather than against property.

This was notable in the revision of the ancient laws of Rome by Gratian, who in his collection of canon law Decretum separated crimes of property from offences against the person...Four elements of rape gradually evolved: abduction, coitus, violence and lack of free consent on the part of the woman. A burgeoning view of the woman's autonomy therefore became evident, together with the concept of individual possession of rights regardless of social status..."​

Result: hypothesis is wrong, falsified by evidence from Danish legal codes pre-and-post conversion to Christianity, revealing a demonstrable example of significant change in moral norms pertaining to the sexual violation of women, moving from viewing rape as a crime against a man's property to a sexual crime against the woman in her own right as a person.

This same could be repeated for a whole plethora of other positive and negative examples of Christianity influencing moral norms. Therefore, your sweeping statement is clearly erroneous.

Good day sir!

 

[Kenny]

I can't make sense of that. When men examine their consciences on the issue of equal rights for women, they usually change their attitude toward women. But, in that case, they changed an attitude that they never really thought about before. It's not conscience that changes but the rejection of a traditional-cultural biased attitude.

Conscience is the mechanism for change. It can't be that and subject to change itself.

Yes... but if the conscience is seared, or if the conscience was programmed wrong, then the conscience needs to change.

For an example, take the hot button of abortions where there is a 50/50 on people's position. Which 50% has their conscience right and are you saying the other 50% have their equal rights wrong?

 

[joe1776]

The OP claims that the Bible condones slavery and that the church leaders following scripture see nothing immoral in slavery. Both statements are wrong.

I gave facts which impartial readers can web search and verify for themselves. Several sources verify the 1866 quote of the pope I used.

"First because I make the point that Church leaders do not follow scripture. They quote it, but it is not an instruction manual."

That's a pointless semantic argument unless you can explain why they would quote it if not to support their position.

"Second its wrong because the Bible is a library which does not declare a purpose for itself. Rather it is many books and letters and is incomprehensible without additional information -- a lot of additional information. If someone claims to make sense of it without additional information they are somehow oblivious to what they have added."

Seven hundred thousand words and we need additional information to make sense of it? Why should an impartial, intelligent person be interested in the spin that you or anyone else can put on it?

 

[joe1776]

@joe1776 Your hypothesis: Christianity Has Had No Effect Whatsoever On Human Morality"

OK, let's test this claim against a piece of historical evidence.

Evidence: The church changed the perception of rape

The church changed the perception of rape

In the Middle Ages the Danish church changed the perception of rape from vandalism against a man’s property to a crime against the raped women

Destroying another man’s clothes, injuring his cattle and raping his wife. These three acts, which viewed through modern eyes seem highly different, were all considered vandalism against a man’s property in the early Middle Ages.

Thanks to the Catholic Church, however, this weird view changed during the Middle Ages,

In line with the church gaining influence on society, helped along by cultural trends, the judicial perception of raped women changed.

Suddenly women were regarded as individuals who should be compensated by the rapist for the injuries he had caused.

Helle Møller Sigh, a researcher at the Department of Culture and Society at Aarhus University, has studied the Danish versions of the Norse Laws, which were written down between the 1170s and the 1240s.

“We’re seeing a change in the legislation, in which rape goes from being a violation against the household – the woman’s husband or her father – to being listed as a separate crime which violates the woman,” she says.

“This is in no small way due to the influence of the Catholic Church, which wanted to create a peaceful and civilised society and help the weak, including women.”

Before the Catholic Church started to gain influence on Danish culture in the Middle Ages, women were commonly regarded as a man’s property.

In the so-called ‘Scanian Law’ the rape of a woman was naturally considered as vandalism. So it was the husband of the raped woman who should be compensated by the rapist – not the raped woman.​

A second piece of corroborating evidence from a different medieval legal code, from sscholar Maria Eriksson in her study, "Defining Rape":

Defining Rape: Emerging Obligations for States Under International Law?

"...In the 12th century the church legislators were the first to recognize the victim as an independent legal person, without reference to her social rank or guardian" The principle of personal responsibility was embraced by the Church...which began to transform legal conceptions of sexual violence. Rape was defined as a crime against the person rather than against property.

This was notable in the revision of the ancient laws of Rome by Gratian, who in his collection of canon law Decretum separated crimes of property from offences against the person...Four elements of rape gradually evolved: abduction, coitus, violence and lack of free consent on the part of the woman. A burgeoning view of the woman's autonomy therefore became evident, together with the concept of individual possession of rights regardless of social status..."​

Result: hypothesis is wrong, falsified by evidence from Danish legal codes pre-and-post conversion to Christianity, revealing a demonstrable example of significant change in moral norms pertaining to the sexual violation of women, moving from viewing rape as a crime against a man's property to a sexual crime against the woman in her own right as a person.

This same could be repeated for a whole plethora of other positive and negative examples of Christianity influencing moral norms. Therefore, your sweeping statement is clearly erroneous.

Good day sir!

As I pointed out in the OP, Catholics have a conscience which led most of them to support the abolition of slavery. What evidence are you offering for the Danes that their religion and not their conscience motivated the moral upgrade? Doesn't scripture support the idea that women are the property of men? What does the Bible say about rape? Aren't Danish Catholics subject to the Church of Rome? What was their official position?

 

[joe1776]

I'm not sure what your argument is. You start with a thread title that proposes "Christianity has no effect whatsoever on human morality." Setting aside that such a sweeping generalization is nonsense from the gate

It's not a sweeping generalization if it's true.

.... in the opening post you talk only about a specific aspect of human culture that has been moralized: slavery.

Is there any reason to think that if religion had no effect on the abolition of slavery, that it would have an effect on any other aspect? If there is, point it out.

Then, within that post, you

give some examples of Christianity impacting human morality!

What were those? I'm unaware of them.

Now you've thrown this "moral advancement" stuff and I'm even

more lost regarding what your argument is supposed to be. I don't know if you're deliberately moving the goal posts here or what.

I threw them in as the last two lines of the OP because they sum up my conclusion. Religion cannot lead moral advances nor can it prevent them despite obsolete-immoral moral scripture.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's a pointless semantic argument unless you can explain why they would quote it if not to support their position.

They quoted it to support their position. So, Herman Cain quotes Pokemon. The contention of the OP was that the Bible mislead church leaders, which was not only incorrect but not even researched -- as indicated by the claim made that anyone can verify the OP's words merely with an internet search. An internet search? That isn't how things get verified when talking about this. One can confirm the Earth is flat that way, too. The only way to know is to actually learn things and know how they work, or one gets caught up wondering whether pyramids generate energy. Its all on the internet, but really it is not.

The problem with the OP remains that it is in denial of what causes slavery and seems to imply that slavery stops because people just all decide to be nice at random. People make other people slaves. Parents in fact are the #1 cause of slavery, selling their own kids or farming them out! That's not Christianity at work. That's the human conscience at work. Then its put to me to prove that Christianity has done more than nothing. Really? So the ignorance of the OP about Christianity is grounds for an argument? No.

Correct me but it seems the OP contention is that no long term effort was needed to undermine the ideas behind slavery, and it just went away all by itself in spite of Christianity? After all no person would want to make another person a slave, right? Christianity was just a neutral observer and had nothing to do with freedom? That's an informed argument is it? No. That's an internet rumor.

I gave facts which impartial readers can web search and verify for themselves. Several sources verify the 1866 quote of the pope I used.

So I am being called partial, because I think that credit goes where credit is due but also blame. I don't deny how badly the Southern churches did or how evil many ministers seem today. In fact the OP never even began with arguments, merely challenges and accusations. It was pointed out by many posters that it lacked historical context. To make an argument it would have needed some token of effort expended to understand the subject.

"First because I make the point that Church leaders do not follow scripture. They quote it, but it is not an instruction manual."

Quoting me. Its not an instruction manual but a library, and each book in the library is written with a particular audience in mind, and that audience is not you are I. Some stories in it are examples of what not to do, but there's no explanation given in the records themselves as they are meant to be used only by qualified individuals. For example Judges is a book in the Bible that unqualified readers take the wrong way. This doesn't make the Bible misleading. It makes it not useful for everybody everywhere at all times, and the person who hands it to you without preparing you is misleading you in that case.

Seven hundred thousand words and we need additional information to make sense of it? Why should an impartial, intelligent person be interested in the spin that you or anyone else can put on it?

Imagine for a moment that there is such a thing as knowledge that one has to learn in order to comment about things knowledgeably. An impartial intelligent person will often not say anything rather than make unfounded accusations to see if anyone can counter them, like just for fun.

 

[Enoch07]

That's because the men who wrote the texts, about two thousand years ago, were citizens of morally immature cultures that condoned slavery.

You refuted your own argument in the first paragraph.

It's true, 2,000 years ago and longer. Slavery was a normalized thing for most if not all cultures. Everyone alive today ancestors were both slaves and slave owners at different times though out history.

The conscience-driven movement to abolish slavery had been gathering momentum in the nations of the world for nearly two centuries when, in 1866, Pope Pius IX, staying consistent with the teachings of his Church and his Bible, declared: "… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.

Yes, the abolitionist movement in America started in 17th century by Christians (Quakers and Evangelicals) who condemned slavery and deemed it as an unchristian belief. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States

The Vatican was lagging behind the rest of Christianity.

 

[joe1776]

They quoted it to support their position. So, Herman Cain quotes Pokemon. The contention of the OP was that the Bible mislead church leaders, which was not only incorrect but not even researched -- as indicated by the claim made that anyone can verify the OP's words merely with an internet search. An internet search? That isn't how things get verified when talking about this. One can confirm the Earth is flat that way, too. The only way to know is to actually learn things and know how they work, or one gets caught up wondering whether pyramids generate energy. Its all on the internet, but really it is not.

The problem with the OP remains that it is in denial of what causes slavery and seems to imply that slavery stops because people just all decide to be nice at random. People make other people slaves. Parents in fact are the #1 cause of slavery, selling their own kids or farming them out! That's not Christianity at work. That's the human conscience at work. Then its put to me to prove that Christianity has done more than nothing. Really? So the ignorance of the OP about Christianity is grounds for an argument? No.

Correct me but it seems the OP contention is that no long term effort was needed to undermine the ideas behind slavery, and it just went away all by itself in spite of Christianity? After all no person would want to make another person a slave, right? Christianity was just a neutral observer and had nothing to do with freedom? That's an informed argument is it? No. That's an internet rumor.

So I am being called partial, because I think that credit goes where credit is due but also blame. I don't deny how badly the Southern churches did or how evil many ministers seem today. In fact the OP never even began with arguments, merely challenges and accusations. It was pointed out by many posters that it lacked historical context. To make an argument it would have needed some token of effort expended to understand the subject.

Quoting me. Its not an instruction manual but a library, and each book in the library is written with a particular audience in mind, and that audience is not you are I. Some stories in it are examples of what not to do, but there's no explanation given in the records themselves as they are meant to be used only by qualified individuals. For example Judges is a book in the Bible that unqualified readers take the wrong way. This doesn't make the Bible misleading. It makes it not useful for everybody everywhere at all times, and the person who hands it to you without preparing you is misleading you in that case.

Imagine for a moment that there is such a thing as knowledge that one has to learn in order to comment about things knowledgeably. An impartial intelligent person will often not say anything rather than make unfounded accusations to see if anyone can counter them, like just for fun.

You are taking this argument off on a tangent. Here's my argument again laid out simply:

P1 Slavery existed before men wrote the Bible.

C1 Therefore, the men who wrote the Bible did not condemn slavery because they saw nothing wrong with it.

P2 As late as 1866, long after the abolition movement had become an obvious trend, a Catholic pope saw nothing wrong with it.

P3 It wasn't until 1965 that Catholic condemned slavery.

C2 Therefore, Catholic leaders did not lead the advance toward the abolition of slavery and there's nothing in scripture that would move any other Christian faith from doing so.

P4 Lay Catholics did not wait until 1965 to change their minds; the movement to abolish the practice forced them to examine their conscience on the issue and they condemned slavery before the hierarchy of the church did.

C3 Conscience, our moral instincts, is the mechanism which creates moral advances like the abolition of slavery and the movement for equal rights for women. Religion's leaders don't propel those advances and can't stop them either.

 

[joe1776]

You refuted your own argument in the first paragraph.

It's true, 2,000 years ago and longer. Slavery was a normalized thing for most if not all cultures. Everyone alive today ancestors were both slaves and slave owners at different times though out history.

How does that refute my argument?

Yes, the abolitionist movement in America started in 17th century by Christians (Quakers and Evangelicals) who condemned slavery and deemed it as an unchristian belief. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States

The Vatican was lagging behind the rest of Christianity.

The Catholics are at a disadvantage because we know their history well. However, it's unlikely that they were any slower than many of the Protestant sects. The Quakers were probably following the dictates of their conscience and not reading their Bible for guidance because, according to the Bible, the Catholics were right.

 

[Enoch07]

How does that refute my argument?

Because it wasn't just Judeo-Christian beliefs that supported slavery at that time. It was normalized in most if not all cultures 2,000+ years ago.

The Quakers were probably following the dictates of their conscience and not reading their Bible for guidance because, according to the Bible, the Catholics were right.

Regardless of why, it was Christians that started the abolitionist movement in the U.S. which eventually led to the end of slavery here. So to say they had no effect on morality at all is false. Ending slavery is a moral action/idea.

Whatever reason the Catholics held on to the belief that slavery was ok, they were in the wrong.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You are taking this argument off on a tangent. Here's my argument again laid out simply:

P1 Slavery existed before men wrote the Bible.

C1 Therefore, the men who wrote the Bible did not condemn slavery because they saw nothing wrong with it.

P2 As late as 1866, long after the abolition movement had become an obvious trend, a Catholic pope saw nothing wrong with it.

Except that they did see some things wrong with it and made laws about that, the prophets envisioned its end, and in Genesis also wrote stories about the problems it causes -- several stories. In fact it is an ignorant statement to claim, without so much as blinking, that Judaism saw nothing wrong with slavery. Its a real stinker. Oh, Judaism so had and has problems with slavery, so many objections. Just consult someone who is Jewish and is familiar with the texts. Also the opinion of the Pope has no bearing on Jewish writers in the Bible. They're a separate, completely separate group. Also, please do not speak for Quakers as their founders are such good Bible students, much much better than apparently they are getting credit for.

P3 It wasn't until 1965 that Catholic condemned slavery.

Yep. Its got nothing to do with the B-I-B-L-E. The Bible does not mislead Catholic leaders into supporting slavery, but they on their own do this for themselves. Their choices are on them, not that either of us is very informed about the history. We know a few things and some dirt, but we're (especially you) not that informed.

C2 Therefore, Catholic leaders did not lead the advance toward the abolition of slavery and there's nothing in scripture that would move any other Christian faith from doing so.

That is anti-logic. The Catholic leaders made a mistake, so all other Christians had to follow suit and the Quakers don't count, and the Jews don't count. It is fallacious to reason from the specific to the general. Again, the Quaker founders are Bible students of a different caliber.

P4 Lay Catholics did not wait until 1965 to change their minds; the movement to abolish the practice forced them to examine their conscience on the issue and they condemned slavery before the hierarchy of the church did.

*sigh* Yes.

C3 Conscience, our moral instincts, is the mechanism which creates moral advances like the abolition of slavery and the movement for equal rights for women. Religion's leaders don't propel those advances and can't stop them either.

Again this does not follow. People to this day abandon their children and sell them, and its what keeps the slave market going. (There are kidnappings, too. That's also the case.) People in general keep doing what they are used to and do not make a fuss if something isn't right in their faces. That is the case with most social issues, so the conscience has very little power.

 

[Serenity7855]

Personally would equate Paul saying women should not talk, and stay below the husband, is a big culprit to regressive thinking...

Just like for every one man, we need two females as witnesses in Islam, as they can't be reliable as they're forgetful.... Matriarchs.

Rabbinic Judaism 'to teach a woman the Torah is to teach her to commit blasphemy.'

View attachment 20241

In a way, any statutory system is going to be none progressive thinking to some degree; unless the system encourages progressive thinking.

In my opinion.

I never looked upon the Bible stories and allegories as being instructions for us to follow, on the contrary, more to avoid. Acts of immorality in its pages primarily demonstrates a cause and effect scenario where a loving God is demonstrating to His children the consequences of sin.

Though many of the stories include Gods retribution on sinners, that is, entirely unprincipled and wicked people, the likes of which can never be brought back into any sense of morality. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that we should allow ourselves to debaucherously emulate such wicked behavior. If you find the lesson in there to be disturbing that you do not understand what the Bible is and what its purpose is. Those who have a gripe with it will never experience the wonderful feelings of enlightenment that it provides for the genuine seekers of truth. For those who knowingly carry the burdens of sin, their reasons for reading this Holy text is tainted with disbelief before reading the first word, so, they will never reap the awesome companionship of the Holy Ghost, who will testify to zealous and committed reader, that which is true. So, there is nothing in the Bible that is intended to promote wickedness and debaucherous behavior. You will, however, find many stories intended to deter immoralities.

Christianity is and institution that only rewards those who earnestly seek the truths and knowledge of our universe. For the disbeliever it would seem like pure folly and nonsense. No amount of reading will ever provide them with the testimony of truth that Christians enjoy.

 

[Ubon]

Religions have influenced politics, The Arts in all forms, Philosophy, Science has even been influence by Religion, Peoples behavior to.
Religion has influenced every aspect of our culture to various degrees.

 

[joe1776]

Because it wasn't just Judeo-Christian beliefs that supported slavery at that time. It was normalized in most if not all cultures 2,000+ years ago.

Yes, that's correct. Why do you think that refutes my argument?

Regardless of why, it was Christians that started the abolitionist movement in the U.S. which eventually led to the end of slavery here. So to say they had no effect on morality at all is false. Ending slavery is a moral action/idea.

Regardless of why? The WHY is the point of my argument. Were the abolitionists moved to do so by their conscience (which everyone has) or by their religion?

Whatever reason the Catholics held on to the belief that slavery was ok, they were in the wrong.

They were not wrong according to their Bible. That's the point. How can anyone argue that Christianity had anything to do with abolishing slavery when slavery was condoned in the sacred texts?

Bottom line: When there is a conflict, regardless of whether they are Christian or not, people follow the dictates of their conscience and not the moral guidance of their religious leaders. Christians were not taught that slavery is wrong according to scripture.