metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorta in-between legally, but fully human nevertheless.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims Entering US
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Even still owning a person as property is the key feature of slavery, and the Bible does permit such a thing, and anything less than a fully-entitled human being is not acceptable.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There were different forms of slavery with one being more along the line of an indentured servant and another dealing with enemy combatants taken as prisoner. With the former, they definitely were treated as humans along with eventually getting their own freedom, and with the latter the alternative choice was to just kill them. Once jails and prisons were built, then there was this third option, which gradually replaced the other two.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
So what you are saying is that I was right. Just that the differences in Islamic belief are the result of ignorance rather than interpretation?
I am not a Muslim and do not claim to be an expert. Perhaps you are right.
I do know a thing or two about Christianity and interpretation certainly plays a very large roll in the varying beliefs of those in that faith. There are dozens of (what Christians consider) important text in the bible that Catholics interpret in an entirely different way than protestants. There are differences among protestants. The town I grew up in had a first day baptist church and a 7th day baptist church (the only two churches in town). A fair number of the members of both believe those in the other group are bound for hell. The only difference I ever found was what days they held services...
Crypto2015
Active Member
There are things that are open to interpretation, such as free will vs. predestination. However, most things are not open to interpretation. You think that all religious texts are entirely open to interpretation, and even think that this is obvious, because your brain is full of the cultural relativism that pervades our culture. According to the paradigma of our time, a very lousy paradigma indeed, there is no absolute right and wrong. Since there is no absolute right and wrong, no culture or ideology can be better than another culture or ideology. It illogically follows that all cultures and ideologies are equivalent. All religions are also equivalent, and all of the apparent contradictions between them can be dismissed as differences in the interpretation of texts that are so ambiguous as to be devoid of any real and tangible message. Our ancestors, who were more rational than we are, would have died of laughter if they had heard of this silly paradigma, but for many in our culture, including you, this paradigma has the status of a sacred truth.
Regarding the anti-slavery spirit contained in the Bible, even a five-year-old child would have been able to see it in the passage that I included in my last post. I guess that nothing blinds someone as much as hate does.
Crypto2015
Active Member
Yes, I think you are right about Islam. I could be wrong, but as far as I understand, it seems that it is a matter of how much they know about Islamic doctrine. I also agree with you on the fact that there are things that are not so clear in the Bible. The first thing that comes to my mind is the predestination vs. free will dilemma. However, loving our enemies, the resurrection of Christ, the love of God, the fact that all of us are sinners, and other crucial concepts are not open to interpretation because they are clearly stated in the Bible.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I think the Bible is open to interpretation because it clearly is, and you've helped demonstrate that in this thread. I've explained the reasons I've given for saying so (several times) so no need to try putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head.
I don't think there is "absolute" right and wrong that comes from divine authority. I don't think all cultures/religions/ideologies are equal. I'm not a cultural relativist. And I don't know that our ancestors were more rational than we are, especially given that they weren't privy to most of the information we have today about the world we live in.
What would a five-year-old make of the parts of the Bible that you have been ignoring for the entire discussion on slavery in this thread? You know, the parts that get into the details about where to get slaves and how to treat them. I don't think I'm the blind one here.
Crypto2015
Active Member
There are things in the Bible that are open to interpretation, such as predestination or if dogs go to heaven or not. Right now I honestly cannot think of any other theological topic for which there is no unambiguous clarification in the Bible. The reason why there are so many Christian denominations is (1) ignorance about the contents of the Bible, and (2) wilful distortion of the message contained in the Bible. For example, US slave owners knew very well that slavery was against the sound teaching of the Bible, but they pretended otherwise in order to keep their businesses from going bankrupt. Similarly, six-day creationists base their interpretation of Genesis on the scripturally-unsupported idea that everything that is written in the Bible must be taken literally.
I have ignored nothing about slavery. I told you that the Law of Moses was not meant to be an eternal code of law. It doesn't claim to be the basis for a perfect human society either. Furthermore, you keep saying that the Bible supports slavery. This is patently false, not only because Old Testament servitude cannot be compared with what we currently understand as slavery, but also because the Bible includes the New Testament, which is clearly an anti-slavery text. All of the verses that, according to you, support slavery, are part of the Law of Moses (i.e., part of the Old Testament). The New Testament clearly states that Christian MUST NOT follow the law of Moses as a legal code. So, even if you were right in saying that the Old Testament prescribes slavery, you would be wrong in saying that the Bible as a whole supports slavery.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That is what they all do. But who is right and who is wrong? Certainly other denominations will find reasons for saying that it is you who have it wrong and are going to Hell because of it.
Obviously they didn't "know" this or think it.
If you aren't supposed to take it all literally, then how do you decide what is literal and what is just story? Is Jonah and big fish just a story? Is the light that Paul allegedly saw literal or story? Is Christ resurrection literal or story?
You have been saying that Biblical law would make society better, and while you are correct in that the Bible never supports such a notion, it still stands that slavery (and other crimes) are a part of Biblical law - and because they are a part of Biblical law, they are a part of God's Word and His laws.
With slavery, treatment is not the subject of the issue, rather it is owning a human being as property and clearly the Old Testament confirms that they owned human beings as property.
No it's not. Several NT passages clearly support slavery and affirm slavery by repeatedly stating that "slaves and free people" are equal before Christ, and that slaves are to obey their masters.
Matthew 5:17-20 makes it seem as if Jesus was saying the laws are to be followed until the heavens and earth pass, and until then not one bit of the law is to be changed or ignored.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You have no idea whether or not the people using the Bible to support slavery were sincere or not - they certainly sound like they were. But there's the problem that is at the heart of this discussion - the passages are so open to interpretation that I can read them and interpret them as an endorsement of slavery while someone else (like yourself) reads it differently.
Most people who have chosen an interpretation of the Bible think they have the right one, or they wouldn't be following it. So some other guy who interprets the Bible differently than you do can just say you're the ignorant one or that you've willfully distorted the messages and you've got it wrong. How would we ever actually know who is right? Maybe you're the insincere one, using the Bible to back up your own agenda, as you accuse others of doing it.
Whether or not the Law of Moses was meant to be an eternal code of law is irrelevant to this discussion.
If what you say is the case, they why do some Christians use the Old Testament to oppose homosexuality? Or witchcraft? Or to support the slave trade?
And if you say it's patently false that the Bible supports slavery (again, I'm talking about the specific parts of the Bible previously mentioned), then please explain why it describes how slaves are to be treated, how long they are to be enslaved, where to purchase slaves, etc. without one word of condemnation of the owning of human beings as properties from the god who supposedly inspired the Bible? The very same god who has absolutely no probably declaring commandments and condemnations against all kinds of other seemingly trivial things, as "he" sees fit. What is described there is slavery, regardless of whether or not it reflects slavery in the US.
Crypto2015
Active Member
First of all, you seem to believe that all slave holders were honest and that all abolitionists were dishonest, simply because the slave holders held the same views about the Bible that you have. To me, that simply proves that the abolitionists were not Christians, just like you are not a Christian. If they had been Christians they would have been able to understand the Bible, just as you would understand the Bible if you decided to give your life to Jesus. Regarding what should be taken literally in the Bible and what not, I would say that that depends on the genre of the book that you are reading. For example, the Song of Songs is poetry and therefore shouldn't be taken literally. The Gospels, on the other hand, are historical accounts and should be taken literally. The first chapter of Genesis could be literal or non-literal (some sort of abridged version of what really happened). Because of what we know about geology and cosmology I feel inclined to support the latter approach.
I never said that Biblical law would make society better. What I said is that if more people were transformed by Christ, society would be better. If by Biblical law you mean the Law of Moses, then you are mistaking me for a different poster because I never said what you claim that I have said. Also, Biblical servitude was not slavery in the US sense of the word. Biblical servitude, slavery as you call it, was markedly different and gave the serfs a lot of rights. Once again, the New Testament is an anti-slavery text:
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free," (Luke 4:18)
Your approach to abolitionism would have resulted in your death and in the death of all of the early Church. What do you think the Roman Emperor would have done to a movement that encouraged slaves to revolt against their masters? Christianity would have been immediately crushed. Fortunately for us, and for all slaves, Paul and the apostles were smarter than you. They knew that to end slavery they needed to transform peoples' lives first. They knew that once everybody was free from sin, and remember that this is the most important thing in Christianity, slavery would disappear on its own. They did the right thing and Roman slavery, which was infinitely more ruthless than Hebrew servitude, disappeared as soon as Christianity became an important part of society.
Regarding Jesus and the law, Jesus was saying that the Law of Moses was eternal as a spiritual guide, but temporal as a legal code. That's why he was against divorce (permitted in the Law of Moses, see Matthew 19:8) and that's why he saved a woman from being stoned for adultery (see John 8:1-11).
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I told you how I justify my views. They don't "feel" right and they don't come from ancient books. Rather, they are things that protect people, further society, and protect the minority from the majority. I don't say nature is important just because it inherently is, but because we all depend on those trees, birds, small animals, even the insects and bacteria to live healthy lives ourselves. You will never hear me saying something is right because God said it is, because to me that is weak and not enough.
By saying "slaves, obey your masters" all Paul did was ensure that slavery would be continued. Slavery generally doesn't end with words, but with revolts, insurrections, and wars. And any time you stand against a ruling regime, you are faced with the possibility of severe consequences, including torture and death.
Again, it doesn't matter. The Bible still says that slaves are property, and that is the main issue behind slavery.
They were Christians. They worshiped the same god as you did, they asked the same messiah for forgiveness of sins, and they believed the same core-doctrine as you. And even without that, this "giving your life to Jesus" is not necessary for understanding the Bible. You can understand the mentality of Christians and their behaviors better if you have been or are a Christian (I often find myself providing a perspective into conservative Christian behaviors given I understand them better having been a conservative Christian), but you don't need such a thing to understand the Bible.
Because we know water cannot be transmuted into wine, because we know people cannot walk on water, because we know human parthenogenesis is not possible, because we know the dead do not return to life, because we know that animals do not become demonically possessed or have voices (even tribal Shamans are aware that they are projecting their own voice), because of all these things the NT speaks of as fact that we know cannot happen, then how do we decide is should be taken literally and what is just a story?
The Founding Fathers could have wiped out slavery from the start of America as a sovereign nation, many of them wanted the dawn of the new America to be free from slavery, but the South wouldn't have it, and they used their Bible's to justify why it is their "right" to own slaves. And the Founding Fathers conceded to the South because they too felt that slavery would die out on its own. However, it didn't die out on it's own, the South argued very hard for it's continued existence and to expand the states and territories were it was allowed, and ultimately to finally end slavery in America the bloodiest and most deadly war America has ever fought was waged.
And, no, slavery did not end in Rome with the rise of Christianity, and many pointed out that Jesus never condemned it in his sermons. So the institute of slavery continued to exist, and even early churches relied on a slave-labor force.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Which makes it sound as though you're trying to monopolise those values as being exclusive to your religion. If you're not doing this then I've mistaken your intent and I apologise for that.
I still can't agree - these values didn't occur when Europe was under the hegemony of the Churches and religious governance - they occurred only after the Enlightenment when philosophy became more rational and secular.
I don't think they did.
I'm not arguing that either. I was arguing against your claim that Christianity invented human rights (apparently it would seem that would be a straw man of my making).
Given that Greek & Roman cultures & philosophies have influenced Western culture as much as the Bible, yes (Scottish law has its roots in Roman law, not Biblical law).
Pot, meet kettle. You're the one who claims Christianity abolished slavery yet you deliberately ignore the fact slavery was continued by Christians for over a millennium; and that in some cases Christian doctrine was used to justify slavery.
Strange that it took the word of the "True God" over a thousand years of domination in Europe to do it, then. Where is God's command for all believers to free slaves without condition? Where is the commandment that Christians should not own slaves? Where in the Bible does it say slavery is a sin?
Yet quite clearly this has happened plenty of times through history - unless you'd like us to believe Christian Europe was a utopia where nobody ever violated the law.
That's a fair amount of deceit going on if that's true; because Christianity itself says that nobody is perfect, save God, because all are sinners and all have fallen short - hence why Christ's redemption is necessary.
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Crypto2015
Active Member
Skeptic, Shadow Wolf and Scotsman,
I have stated clearly what Christianity really teaches about slavery. It is pointless to continue with this discussion because you don't want to see things from another perspective. You have your prejudices against the Bible and that's all you are able to see. So, as far as I am concerned, the discussion is over.
I have stated clearly what Christianity really teaches about slavery. It is pointless to continue with this discussion because you don't want to see things from another perspective. You have your prejudices against the Bible and that's all you are able to see. So, as far as I am concerned, the discussion is over.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
All you've shown is that the Bible affirms that someone can be a slave. You've not shown any passages that condemn slavery, that ban slavery, or even question the idea of a human being being owned as someone else's property. You've shown that the ones going out and capturing people to put them into slavery are considered not good, but even America put a ban on bringing in any new slaves from Africa while the practice of slavery continued in America unabated.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Sure, but there is at least one problem with what you are saying. Christians who believe in predestination think those who believe in free will are ignorant. Those who claim Islam is a 'religion of peace' also claim the extremist are ignorant.
It may be on different subjects. The importance of these subjects may be in question. But everyone thinks those who disagree with them are ignorant.
Crypto2015
Active Member
Regarding predestination, it is as you have said. However, in other cases, it is clear who has the upper hand in terms of scriptural support. For example, the purgatory. Catholics know that there is no scriptural support for that.
McBell
Unbound
No, you really haven't.
All you have done is present your interpretation of what you think the Bible teaches.
That you think your interpretation of what you think the Bible teaches includes the word "really" is rather interesting, but doe snot change the facts.
Kettle, meet pot.
Again, Kettle, meet pot.
Too bad.
Your hypocrisy is actually quite entertaining.