Notices
Results 1 to 100 of 100

Thread: Did Christians keep slaves?

  1. #1 Did Christians keep slaves? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    101
    I have always wondered. Were the slaves mentioned in the new test, realy slaves? Or were they just workers, and there master just their boss. I think some of them got paid. If I remember right. filix.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    It's often an excuse used by Christian apologist to avoid facing the difficult issue..."but but but...they weren't really slaves.... " The bible is full of slavery and the history shows it certainly practiced by the Hebrew in the OT until the 19th century by many Christians. Some contemporary groups only recently faced up to it, such as the formal apology by the Southern Baptist Convention in the mid-1990s.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    They did. The Bible was even pointed out as justification for slavery in the Confederate States and Biblical verses condoning slavery were read to slaves themselves to justify their condition:

    "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis
    [Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder
    because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.
    (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    All true. Ironically enough Christianity was most popular in its early history AMONG slaves. It made a virtue of humility, an inescapable part of the life of a slave, and promised freedom and glory in the afterlife, treasures appreciated all the more by those who were deprived of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    From the Christian perspective too, it could be seen that ALL men, regardless of legal status, could be "slaves" to their baser natures, an insight shared by Socrates. There is good reason to believe that gentle Jesus, Prince of Peace and Son of Mary, had read Plato. That part of the world had been part of Alexander's Empire and Greek was commonly spoken in the area at the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by filix View Post
    I have always wondered. Were the slaves mentioned in the new test, realy slaves? Or were they just workers, and there master just their boss. I think some of them got paid. If I remember right. filix.
    At that time "servi", from which our word "servant" is derived, meant "slaves". Slaves have at various times been allowed to have money and even purchase slaves of their own, indeed, even to purchase their own manumission.

    Manumission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    From the Christian perspective too, it could be seen that ALL men, regardless of legal status, could be "slaves" to their baser natures, an insight shared by Socrates.
    Socrates believed that the Many, the hoi-polloi. were slaves to their base natures and the aristoi, philosopher-kings, were aware of the Good. I could not, by any stretch of means, consider the Republic a series of novels about egalitarianism, nor Socrates being Christian-like, despite Christianity being influenced by Neoplatonism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    So who is asking you to do so? Not I, certainly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    So who is asking you to do so? Not I, certainly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler
    From the Christian perspective too, it could be seen that ALL men, regardless of legal status, could be "slaves" to their baser natures, an insight shared by Socrates
    The above is nuncupatory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Yes they owned slaves, much as people who can afford one own cars today .. but the New Testament scriptures encouraged slave owners to set them free, not by civil war or anything just out of the love of God in the slave owner's heart.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Yes they owned slaves, much as people who can afford one own cars today .. but the New Testament scriptures encouraged slave owners to set them free, not by civil war or anything just out of the love of God in the slave owner's heart.
    I expect this is pointless, but: can you say where the Bible says that?

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm:
    Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery.
    (I know, it doesn't actually have any words that say it, you just have to let the voices in your head tell you that is what it says. Convenient.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    So who is asking you to do so? Not I, certainly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler
    From the Christian perspective too, it could be seen that ALL men, regardless of legal status, could be "slaves" to their baser natures, an insight shared by Socrates
    The above is nuncupatory.
    It is you who say so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Yes they owned slaves, much as people who can afford one own cars today .. but the New Testament scriptures encouraged slave owners to set them free, not by civil war or anything just out of the love of God in the slave owner's heart.
    I expect this is pointless, but: can you say where the Bible says that?

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm:
    Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery.
    (I know, it doesn't actually have any words that say it, you just have to let the voices in your head tell you that is what it says. Convenient.)
    It is implied at least by Matthew 25:40, or do you disagree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    It is implied at least by Matthew 25:40, or do you disagree?
    Is that:
    But the King will answer them, 'In solemn truth I tell you that in so far as you rendered such services to one of the humblest of these my brethren, you rendered them to myself.'
    I struggle to see how that can be interpreted to mean that slaves should be freed for the love of God.

    It sounds more like, "do unto others as you would do unto me".

    If it were to be related to slavery, it would mean: if you free a slave you are also freeing the King.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,910
    It doesn't seem appropriate to hold a theology discussion in the "scientific study of religion" forum. I think we ought to be sticking to just the historical facts. It is a fact that some Christians held slaves, and that they found biblical quotes supporting slavery. It is also a historical fact that there were Christian abolitionist and they found biblical support for their position, such as this one from Lincoln.
    To read in the Bible, as the word of God himself, that "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," and to preach therefrom that, "In the sweat of other mans faces shalt thou eat bread," to my mind can scarcely be reconciled with honest sincerity.
    --May 30, 1864 Letter to George Ide and Others
    Christian organizations like the Quakers played a large part in abolition of slavery, not only in the Christian world, but also worldwide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    Ironically Lincoln was not a Christian. (more like a deist who respected Jesus the man) ..but you're quite correct lets stick to the facts of the matter: there were Christians on both sides of the issue by the late 18th century.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    It is implied at least by Matthew 25:40, or do you disagree?
    Is that:
    But the King will answer them, 'In solemn truth I tell you that in so far as you rendered such services to one of the humblest of these my brethren, you rendered them to myself.'
    I struggle to see how that can be interpreted to mean that slaves should be freed for the love of God.

    It sounds more like, "do unto others as you would do unto me".

    If it were to be related to slavery, it would mean: if you free a slave you are also freeing the King.
    Indeed. And so when we feed the hungry, treat the sick, comfort the afflicted. It is a duty to the Lord.

    Or so a true Christian might claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Lengthy bit which might be relevant:

    Is slavery evil, and if so, surely the North was right in the American Civil War?

    Slavery as an institution can be understood in two ways. The ancient pagans understood it as the right of ownership of one person over another, as over a thing or an animal, the slave entirely belonging in every aspect to his master, without any recognition of his free will. This is illicit and immoral, for one person can never have the right of control over another’s intellect and will, according to which he is made in the image and likeness of God. Such a pagan concept of slavery is manifestly opposed to the natural law, and a violation of every man’s duty to use his own intellect and will to freely serve God.


    However, slavery need not be understood in this sense. It can be simply the ownership of a man’s ability to work, his abilities, his productivity. Understood in this sense, it does not violate a man’s free will, nor his duty to love and serve God, and is consequently not opposed to the natural law.


    Furthermore, slavery is not opposed to the divine positive law, i.e., to the law promulgated by God Himself. We consequently find it in this sense allowed in the Old Law for the Jews. Slavery is also mentioned several times in the New Testament as something licit, slaves not being encouraged to revolt, but to maintain their faithful service, for example by St. Peter: "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (I Pet. 2:18). St. Paul says the same: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ" (Eph. 6:5). Also Col. 3:22. Likewise, masters are not told to free their slaves, but to treat them well: "Masters, do to your servants that which is just and equal: knowing that you also have a master in heaven" (Col. 4:1). Also Eph. 6:9. Consequently, it cannot be said that God forbids slavery in itself.
    The fact that slavery is not in itself intrinsically wrong can also be established from the fact that it is licit for one man or for society to have power over a man’s services or his acts. If a man can hire his labor out for a time, he can hire it out for life, as was the case of the serfs in Christendom. Likewise, if society has authority over a man to impose imprisonment or capital punishment for crimes, then it has the authority to impose a lesser sentence, such as the ownership of a man’s services.This being said, it is manifestly obvious that the rise of the Catholic Church little by little put an end to this institution, which it has many times condemned. The problem with slavery is that it is so open to abuse, the slaves having no protection against the infringing of their interior, personal freedom, nor having any guarantee of being treated with kindness, of being supplied with all the necessities of life, of not being overworked, and of respect for their person.These abuses became horrifically apparent in the slave trade for the New World. Slave-hunting, selling of children into slavery, inhumane treatment in the transports and by slave traders, and some slave owners are but some of these immoral conditions. It is for this reason that the popes again and again condemned this slave trade, starting with Pius II in 1462, including Paul III (1537), Urban VIII (1639), Benedict XIV (1741), Gregory XVI (1839) and Leo XIII (1888). Gregory XVI had this to say:

    The Roman Pontiffs our predecessors of glorious memory have not at all failed to many times seriously reprehend slavery, as is their duty, as being harmful to their (the black peoples’) spiritual salvation and bringing opprobrium to the Christian name …whence we admonish and order by our Apostolic authority all the faithful of every condition …not to reduce into slavery …or exercise this inhuman trade. (Dec. 3, 1839)

    Leo XIII was even more explicit in his letter In Plurimis on May 5, 1888, to congratulate the bishops of Brazil on the emancipation of slaves in Brazil on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination:

    This decision was particularly consoling and agreeable to us because we received the confirmation of this news, so dear to us, that the Brazilians desire henceforth to abolish and completely extirpate the barbaric practice of slavery.… For in the midst of so much misery, we must particularly deplore that misery of slavery, to which a considerable part of the human family has been subject for many centuries, thus groaning under the sorrow of abjection, contrary to what God and nature first established…. This inhuman and iniquitous doctrine that slaves must, as instruments lacking reason and understanding, serve the will of their masters in all things, is supremely detestable —so much, indeed, that once it has been accepted there is no oppression, no matter how disgusting or barbarous, that cannot be maintained uncontested with a certain appearance of legality and law.

    Consequently, there can be no doubt that the importing of slaves from Africa to the New World, so frequently condemned by the Church, as actually practiced was evil. This does not, however, mean that the Church condemned every slave owner. There were certainly Catholic slave owners, who took real care of their slaves, supported their families, provided for all their needs, gave them every facility to become Catholic and save their souls, and who consequently committed no sin, but rather acts of virtue. In practice, however, the multitude of evils and abuses far outweighed the good.This being said, Catholic historians who have studied the Civil War point out that the real question was not one of slavery at all, but one of economic control. It was the capitalists of the North, with their factories, mines, means of production, forcing an industrial and economic revolution on the agrarian South. The Northerners had long had slaves of their own. However, the Industrial Revolution produced a new kind of slavery, that of the factory workers, who would sweat very long hours for little income, for the profit of their capitalist masters.The struggles for the rights of workers demonstrate that despite their technical freedom, they were just as oppressed as the slaves of old, and very often more so, for the slaves at least were provided with all the necessities of life. The question of slavery is consequently of little importance in the discussion of right and wrong in the Civil War. It really is a question of economic revolution. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

    FROM

    Catholic FAQs:* Morality
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    More context...

    "November. 21, 1861, sermon, Thomas Smyth, minister of the Second Presbyterian Church of Charleston, attacked the Declaration of Independence, according to scholar H. Shelton Smith in In His Image, But . . . Smyth summarized the argument like this:
    “God is introduced to give dignity and emphasis . . . and then He is banished,” said [Thomas Smyth]. It was this very atheistic Declaration which had inspired the “higher law” doctrine of the radical antislavery men. If the mischievous abolitionists had only followed the Bible instead of the godless Declaration, they would have been bound to acknowledge that human bondage was divinely ordained. The mission of southerners was therefore clear; they must defend the word of God against abolitionist infidels.



    "November 29, 1860, sermon at the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, Louisiana, when the Reverend Benjamin Morgan Palmer declared it a duty to defend slavery. He criticized abolitionist ideas, then:
    Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and Religion. The Abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type. Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights. From a thousand Jacobin Clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law. . . . This spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims, and slavery for its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the air: “liberty, equality, fraternity,” which simply interpreted, means bondage, confiscation, and massacre. With its tricolor waving in the breeze—it waits to inaugurate its reign of terror. To the South the high position is assigned of defending, before all nations, the cause of all religions and of all truths. In this trust, we are resisting the power which wars against constitutions and laws and compacts, against Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the state, and the church, which blasphemously invades the prerogatives of God, and rebukes the Most High for the errors of his administration. . . ."

    The Christian Origin of Racism: Atheist Abolotionist Serpents in Slaves' Eden Part 4
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    John Brown, on the other hand, was a highly motivated Christian abolitionist. To the point of terrorism, actually. He was motivated in part by the martyrdom of E. P. Lovejoy:

    Elijah Parish Lovejoy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Christians still endorse slavery of sorts, in US prisons.
    Last edited by drowsy turtle; March 2nd, 2012 at 12:41 PM. Reason: typo
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,910
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Christians still endorse slavery of sorts, in US prisons.
    What are you talking about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,910
    Okay. Now do you have any credible sources? And what does it have to do with Christians?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    881
    I believe that all abrahamic religions justified slavery through employing the Hamitic Hypothesis.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Yes they owned slaves, much as people who can afford one own cars today .. but the New Testament scriptures encouraged slave owners to set them free, not by civil war or anything just out of the love of God in the slave owner's heart.
    I expect this is pointless, but: can you say where the Bible says that?

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm:
    Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery.
    (I know, it doesn't actually have any words that say it, you just have to let the voices in your head tell you that is what it says. Convenient.)
    Philemon Chapter One.

    Plus . . "He whom the Lord sets free, is free indeed."

    Revelation 18:13 (Speaking of the great whore Babylon, "in whom was found the blood of all who were killed in the earth.")
    "And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men."
    Revelation 18:12-14 (in Context) Revelation 18 (Whole Chapter)
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Ironically Lincoln was not a Christian. (more like a deist who respected Jesus the man) ..but you're quite correct lets stick to the facts of the matter: there were Christians on both sides of the issue by the late 18th century.
    The civil war was fought to steal black human labour from the south, where it was no longer needed because of mechanization, but it was needed in the north, to mine coal and man factories which produced among other things machines to replace human labour in the south (sold to them at a fortune of course.) Conditions of freed slaves taken to the north was generally far worse than before the war. Likewise, the British abolished slavery because it was the pantation owners who were the new wealthy class, whereas the manufacturers were denied the right of getting rich by selling things to the millions of black slaves. Free the slaves = free the consumer to consume.

    "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, which saved a soul like me." Written by a slave ship captain after his conversion to Christ.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Lengthy bit which might be relevant:

    Is slavery evil, and if so, surely the North was right in the American Civil War?

    Slavery as an institution can be understood in two ways. The ancient pagans understood it as the right of ownership of one person over another, as over a thing or an animal, the slave entirely belonging in every aspect to his master, without any recognition of his free will. This is illicit and immoral, for one person can never have the right of control over another’s intellect and will, according to which he is made in the image and likeness of God. Such a pagan concept of slavery is manifestly opposed to the natural law, and a violation of every man’s duty to use his own intellect and will to freely serve God.


    However, slavery need not be understood in this sense. It can be simply the ownership of a man’s ability to work, his abilities, his productivity. Understood in this sense, it does not violate a man’s free will, nor his duty to love and serve God, and is consequently not opposed to the natural law.


    Furthermore, slavery is not opposed to the divine positive law, i.e., to the law promulgated by God Himself. We consequently find it in this sense allowed in the Old Law for the Jews. Slavery is also mentioned several times in the New Testament as something licit, slaves not being encouraged to revolt, but to maintain their faithful service, for example by St. Peter: "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (I Pet. 2:18). St. Paul says the same: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ" (Eph. 6:5). Also Col. 3:22. Likewise, masters are not told to free their slaves, but to treat them well: "Masters, do to your servants that which is just and equal: knowing that you also have a master in heaven" (Col. 4:1). Also Eph. 6:9. Consequently, it cannot be said that God forbids slavery in itself.
    The fact that slavery is not in itself intrinsically wrong can also be established from the fact that it is licit for one man or for society to have power over a man’s services or his acts. If a man can hire his labor out for a time, he can hire it out for life, as was the case of the serfs in Christendom. Likewise, if society has authority over a man to impose imprisonment or capital punishment for crimes, then it has the authority to impose a lesser sentence, such as the ownership of a man’s services.This being said, it is manifestly obvious that the rise of the Catholic Church little by little put an end to this institution, which it has many times condemned. The problem with slavery is that it is so open to abuse, the slaves having no protection against the infringing of their interior, personal freedom, nor having any guarantee of being treated with kindness, of being supplied with all the necessities of life, of not being overworked, and of respect for their person.These abuses became horrifically apparent in the slave trade for the New World. Slave-hunting, selling of children into slavery, inhumane treatment in the transports and by slave traders, and some slave owners are but some of these immoral conditions. It is for this reason that the popes again and again condemned this slave trade, starting with Pius II in 1462, including Paul III (1537), Urban VIII (1639), Benedict XIV (1741), Gregory XVI (1839) and Leo XIII (1888). Gregory XVI had this to say:

    The Roman Pontiffs our predecessors of glorious memory have not at all failed to many times seriously reprehend slavery, as is their duty, as being harmful to their (the black peoples’) spiritual salvation and bringing opprobrium to the Christian name …whence we admonish and order by our Apostolic authority all the faithful of every condition …not to reduce into slavery …or exercise this inhuman trade. (Dec. 3, 1839)

    Leo XIII was even more explicit in his letter In Plurimis on May 5, 1888, to congratulate the bishops of Brazil on the emancipation of slaves in Brazil on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination:

    This decision was particularly consoling and agreeable to us because we received the confirmation of this news, so dear to us, that the Brazilians desire henceforth to abolish and completely extirpate the barbaric practice of slavery.… For in the midst of so much misery, we must particularly deplore that misery of slavery, to which a considerable part of the human family has been subject for many centuries, thus groaning under the sorrow of abjection, contrary to what God and nature first established…. This inhuman and iniquitous doctrine that slaves must, as instruments lacking reason and understanding, serve the will of their masters in all things, is supremely detestable —so much, indeed, that once it has been accepted there is no oppression, no matter how disgusting or barbarous, that cannot be maintained uncontested with a certain appearance of legality and law.

    Consequently, there can be no doubt that the importing of slaves from Africa to the New World, so frequently condemned by the Church, as actually practiced was evil. This does not, however, mean that the Church condemned every slave owner. There were certainly Catholic slave owners, who took real care of their slaves, supported their families, provided for all their needs, gave them every facility to become Catholic and save their souls, and who consequently committed no sin, but rather acts of virtue. In practice, however, the multitude of evils and abuses far outweighed the good.This being said, Catholic historians who have studied the Civil War point out that the real question was not one of slavery at all, but one of economic control. It was the capitalists of the North, with their factories, mines, means of production, forcing an industrial and economic revolution on the agrarian South. The Northerners had long had slaves of their own. However, the Industrial Revolution produced a new kind of slavery, that of the factory workers, who would sweat very long hours for little income, for the profit of their capitalist masters.The struggles for the rights of workers demonstrate that despite their technical freedom, they were just as oppressed as the slaves of old, and very often more so, for the slaves at least were provided with all the necessities of life. The question of slavery is consequently of little importance in the discussion of right and wrong in the Civil War. It really is a question of economic revolution. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

    FROM

    Catholic FAQs:* Morality
    Roman Catholicism had no special place on the freeing of the slaves .. to say so is mere propaganda, effort to whitewash the murder of hundreds of millions of people around the world by Roman Catholic armies, those armies which came close to being equalled by Protestant armies and Orthodox armies. Please note, Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world then would my disciples fight, but my kingdom is not hence." Again, "He who taketh the sword shall die by the sword."
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by aristarchus
    The civil war was fought to steal black human labour from the south, where it was no longer needed because of mechanization, but it was needed in the north, to mine coal and man factories which produced among other things machines to replace human labour in the south (sold to them at a fortune of course.)
    Bullshit.

    Black labor was so much needed in the south that various informal methods of enslavement were created as soon as possible after the Civil War, to man the factories and mines and plantations and ports and service jobs in the cities of the south. Blacks did not move north in large numbers to man factories until the early 1900s, in the wake of the First World War.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Biblical slavery is much different than the kind we think of today... And that is a common misconception.

    This however does not excuse all the other controversial issues of the Bible and its self-contradicting nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by aristarchus
    The civil war was fought to steal black human labour from the south, where it was no longer needed because of mechanization, but it was needed in the north, to mine coal and man factories which produced among other things machines to replace human labour in the south (sold to them at a fortune of course.)
    Bullshit.

    Black labor was so much needed in the south that various informal methods of enslavement were created as soon as possible after the Civil War, to man the factories and mines and plantations and ports and service jobs in the cities of the south. Blacks did not move north in large numbers to man factories until the early 1900s, in the wake of the First World War.
    They were enslaved (for slave wages of course) in the north in coal mines. But just remember, you and I and everyone on this forum are enslaved to history clouded by the spirit of 1984, you know, the novel, the movie.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    Biblical slavery is much different than the kind we think of today... And that is a common misconception.

    This however does not excuse all the other controversial issues of the Bible and its self-contradicting nature.
    What differences? Throughout history some slaves were well treated, other were abused, depending on the spirit/mentality/moods of their owners, but they were all slaves, they were property owned by the slaveowner, much as the banks own the walking corpses of hundreds of millions of people paying mortgages and car payments .. ownership .. legal slavery self-enforced for the shiny things offered by advertising.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    Biblical slavery is much different than the kind we think of today... And that is a common misconception.

    This however does not excuse all the other controversial issues of the Bible and its self-contradicting nature.
    What differences? Throughout history some slaves were well treated, other were abused, depending on the spirit/mentality/moods of their owners, but they were all slaves, they were property owned by the slaveowner, much as the banks own the walking corpses of hundreds of millions of people paying mortgages and car payments .. ownership .. legal slavery self-enforced for the shiny things offered by advertising.
    If my understanding is correct, slavery described in Pentateuchan law is justified by debt to the slave owner. If you owed me money that you cannot compensate for, I will offer you to work for me in labor. Then I will house and feed you adequately. Also, when God sent the Israelites to Egypt's captivity, it was sheerly for sustentation until the time was right to deliver them in the promiseland. Thus from the 12 brothers came the 12 tribes, which out of the tribe of Judah comes Messiah... the pinnacle of God's plan. Is it not?

    However, slavery as done in the times of the civil war was unjustified forced labor based superficially on the idea of racial inferiority. That's the basic difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Okay. Now do you have any credible sources? And what does it have to do with Christians?
    It doesn't specifically relate to christians, but there are certainly christians who support prison labour. As for sources, I thought it was a well-known phenomenon? But hey, if you insist:

    DLC: U.S. prison labor output: $2.4 billion annually.

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/bja/piecp...tml#background

    Louisiana State Penitentiary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    While technically not slavery, it's the next best thing - incarceration, practically no pay, no real choice as to whether or not to work...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,910
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post

    While technically not slavery, it's the next best thing - incarceration,
    Yep.
    They're in prison.
    practically no pay,
    Where did it say that?
    no real choice as to whether or not to work...
    Where does it say that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    Biblical slavery is much different than the kind we think of today... And that is a common misconception.

    This however does not excuse all the other controversial issues of the Bible and its self-contradicting nature.
    What differences? Throughout history some slaves were well treated, other were abused, depending on the spirit/mentality/moods of their owners, but they were all slaves, they were property owned by the slaveowner, much as the banks own the walking corpses of hundreds of millions of people paying mortgages and car payments .. ownership .. legal slavery self-enforced for the shiny things offered by advertising.
    If my understanding is correct, slavery described in Pentateuchan law is justified by debt to the slave owner. If you owed me money that you cannot compensate for, I will offer you to work for me in labor. Then I will house and feed you adequately. Also, when God sent the Israelites to Egypt's captivity, it was sheerly for sustentation until the time was right to deliver them in the promiseland. Thus from the 12 brothers came the 12 tribes, which out of the tribe of Judah comes Messiah... the pinnacle of God's plan. Is it not?

    However, slavery as done in the times of the civil war was unjustified forced labor based superficially on the idea of racial inferiority. That's the basic difference.
    Racial inferiority? Canada chained white kids to factory machines, as did every industrialized nation. Slavery knows NO bounds .. any living organism is profitable if it can be worked to death and then easily replaced.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    However, slavery as done in the times of the civil war was unjustified forced labor based superficially on the idea of racial inferiority.
    And god's will because they wore the mark/curse of Cain as their dark skin, the official doctrine of most Protestant groups and central to the pro-slavery arguments.

    "We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority...."

    "We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him—our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude ...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be.
    "

    Senator Jefferson Davis on the Senate Floor, February 29, 1860
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by aristarchus
    They were enslaved (for slave wages of course) in the north in coal mines. But just remember, you and I and everyone on this forum are enslaved to history clouded by the spirit of 1984, you know, the novel, the movie.
    Your claim that the Civil War was fought to obtain black human labor from no longer needed southern slaves is bullshit. Black human labor was much needed in the south after the Civil War, and it remained there for more than a generation. The north had plenty of sources for cheap labor - Ireland, notably.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    I have been looking at this thread and there are a couple of problems in the discussion.

    First of all, Felix's OP was:
    I have always wondered. Were the slaves mentioned in the new test, realy slaves? Or were they just workers, and there master just their boss. I think some of them got paid. If I remember right. filix.
    I think the simple answers would be yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

    I just don't quite know where science actually fits into the question unless we consider it social science!!??

    Implicit in the question, it seems to me, would be what is the Biblical position on slavery and in order to discuss that we need to understand that (as per the question) we are talking about New Testament culture of 2,000 years ago and we would also need to understand that the Christian culture of that day would have looked at Old Testament scriptures for direction.

    We have a tendency in our culture to see slavery in terms of involuntary servitude. It would appear to me that Old Testament Jews very likely often turned captives into such slaves and it also appears that Onesimus was in some way endentured to Philemon. So, it would seem to me that both Jews and early Christians had slaves.

    So it is necessart to recognize that slavery was widespread in Biblical times in virtually every culture. Recognizing it as a social reality, if not economic necessity, the Bible regulates it rather than condoning it, allowing it or condemning it. I think about the only thing in the Bible you could suggest is against slavery is found in Paul's letter to Philemon where he tells Philemon that he should accept Onesimus back as a Christian brother rather than punish him as a runaway slave. Paul hints that Philemon might consider sending Onesimus back to Paul because he has found him profitable (useful) in his ministry. There is a little joke here in that the name Onesimus suggests uselessness.

    Meanwhile the Bible devotes its mentions of slavery in both old and new testaments to masters treating their slaves well and with dignity. In fact, if a slave were abused, the slave was to be set free. He could also buy his freedom and they could be endenture for no more than seven years after which they were free. Plus there was a Jubilee year (every 50 years) in which all slaves were set free. The could also choose to remain with their master for life and while the master could not terminate the arrangement, the slave could.

    But now, let us consider what might have happened if, at any time, God had instructed the immediate abolition of slavery. It likely would have resulted in the same social chaos that occurred here in America when slavery was forcefully abolished.

    The Bible makes it clear that all believers, slave and free, masters and servants, management and line workers, no matter what the working relationship, they all have equal spiritual standing before God. And through that the Bible planted the seeds of principles that permeate our present society to the point that we abhor slavery of the involuntary servitude nature. Moreover, I think our society now finds any form of unfair treatment of workers to be unacceptable.

    Often, some posters here claim that the Bible condones slavery not because it actually does, but because it refused to condemn it at a time when slavery was socially and economically necessary. It was as much a part of their culture as automobiles are in ours.

    Back to Felix's original question it would be true that both Jewish and Christian people of business and commerce employed the use of slaves just as did every ethnic and political group of those times from ancient Egyptian to Greek and Roman cultures. However, I am unaware of any other group which had written instructions requiring proper treatment of people in such service.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    However, slavery as done in the times of the civil war was unjustified forced labor based superficially on the idea of racial inferiority.
    And god's will because they wore the mark/curse of Cain as their dark skin, the official doctrine of most Protestant groups and central to the pro-slavery arguments.

    "We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority...."

    "We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him—our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude ...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be.
    "

    Senator Jefferson Davis on the Senate Floor, February 29, 1860
    Remember, Lynx, the devil took parts of scripture to Jesus during Christ's hour of temptation .. but to resist temptation Jesus used the entire Word, not just parts as do the denominations.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by aristarchus
    They were enslaved (for slave wages of course) in the north in coal mines. But just remember, you and I and everyone on this forum are enslaved to history clouded by the spirit of 1984, you know, the novel, the movie.
    Your claim that the Civil War was fought to obtain black human labor from no longer needed southern slaves is bullshit. Black human labor was much needed in the south after the Civil War, and it remained there for more than a generation. The north had plenty of sources for cheap labor - Ireland, notably.
    Iceaura .. you appear to be correct in that there was no surplus of slaves in the south. However, there was a shortage of labour in the north .. labourers needed because the Irish and other European immigrants were quick to move into skilled trades. "The first generations worked largely at unskilled and semiskilled occupations, but their children found themselves working at increasingly skilled trades. By 1900, when Irish American mend made up about a thirteenth of the male labor force, they were almost a third of the plumbers, steamfitters, and boilermakers." http://library.thinkquest.org/20619/Irish.html The "freed" black slaves were moved up for northern labour, most often, according to history I have read, in worse conditions that they had in the south.
    Last edited by Aristarchus in Exile; March 5th, 2012 at 01:56 PM.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    Lynx Fox said:

    And god's will because they wore the mark/curse of Cain as their dark skin, the official doctrine of most Protestant groups and central to the pro-slavery arguments.

    "We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority...."

    "We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him—our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude ...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be.
    "

    Senator Jefferson Davis on the Senate Floor, February 29, 1860
    I had not noticed this post until Aristarchus commented.

    I would like to point out that we do not hold modern scientists in contempt or hold them up to criticism because some scientist in 1920 quoted the old laws of thermodynamics which we now understand to be have been erroneously based on a previous understandings of observed data.

    It sort of frustrates me that scientifics can excuse errors and/or changes in science based on new understandings of the information while religion (Christianity, especially) is villified because of older thinking which has been supplanted and changed by newer applications to society.

    This is a classic example of the double standard applied by scientism as has been mentioned on more than one thread in this forum.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    I would like to point out that we do not hold modern scientists in contempt or hold them up to criticism because some scientist in 1920 quoted the old laws of thermodynamics which we now understand to be have been erroneously based on a previous understandings of observed data.
    Are you stating that the older the source of morality, the more likely that it is not a credible source, and therefore the Bible is not relevant today?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    My Jefferson Douglas quotes were meant to provide context and make clear that Protestant Christian views that regards blacks cursed by god were center stage in supporting pro-slavery arguments 150 years ago.


    I have a hard time finding equivalence between science which replaces or builds new ideas in the face of evidence in most cases in less than a decade, and some religions which take nearly 2000 years to accept a new idea. The Southern Baptist Convention didn't even recant its racist positions until the 1990s--not a good track record for Christianity--1800+ years of indecision on such an important human rights subject and another 130 to declare it wrong after society rejected it in the bloodiest war in American history. And this religious-based dogma and bigotry still pervades many places such as Vidor Texas. A science equivalent would be finding papers still being published from people using the incorrect pre-1920s thermodynamics--for the most part science doesn't get nearly as entrenched or dogmatic.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    Biblical slavery is much different than the kind we think of today... And that is a common misconception.

    This however does not excuse all the other controversial issues of the Bible and its self-contradicting nature.
    What differences? Throughout history some slaves were well treated, other were abused, depending on the spirit/mentality/moods of their owners, but they were all slaves, they were property owned by the slaveowner, much as the banks own the walking corpses of hundreds of millions of people paying mortgages and car payments .. ownership .. legal slavery self-enforced for the shiny things offered by advertising.
    If my understanding is correct, slavery described in Pentateuchan law is justified by debt to the slave owner. If you owed me money that you cannot compensate for, I will offer you to work for me in labor. Then I will house and feed you adequately. Also, when God sent the Israelites to Egypt's captivity, it was sheerly for sustentation until the time was right to deliver them in the promiseland. Thus from the 12 brothers came the 12 tribes, which out of the tribe of Judah comes Messiah... the pinnacle of God's plan. Is it not?

    However, slavery as done in the times of the civil war was unjustified forced labor based superficially on the idea of racial inferiority. That's the basic difference.
    Racial inferiority? Canada chained white kids to factory machines, as did every industrialized nation. Slavery knows NO bounds .. any living organism is profitable if it can be worked to death and then easily replaced.
    Slavery knows no bounds. I agree. However I did say that was only the main basic reason. And it is undeniable that most of Civil War era slavery was based primarily on skin color. If a plantation had black slaves, the lighter skinned ones would work in-house as butler/maid type servants. While the darker skinned were left with the painstaking job of gathering and picking cash crops. - It was a sad aspect of the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    My Jefferson Douglas quotes were meant to provide context and make clear that Protestant Christian views that regards blacks cursed by god were center stage in supporting pro-slavery arguments 150 years ago.


    I have a hard time finding equivalence between science which replaces or builds new ideas in the face of evidence in most cases in less than a decade, and some religions which take nearly 2000 years to accept a new idea. The Southern Baptist Convention didn't even recant its racist positions until the 1990s--not a good track record for Christianity--1800+ years of indecision on such an important human rights subject and another 130 to declare it wrong after society rejected it in the bloodiest war in American history. And this religious-based dogma and bigotry still pervades many places such as Vidor Texas. A science equivalent would be finding papers still being published from people using the incorrect pre-1920s thermodynamics--for the most part science doesn't get nearly as entrenched or dogmatic.
    I used to be a Christian apologetic. And in my opinion, I always thought such denominations and independent groups always twisted their interpretation of the Bible to their wants and whims. Though it seems like every denomination does that, to justify slavery on such grounds is very wrong. But looking back on it from a more impartial standpoint, there were a lot of times when God (seemingly) unfairly punished a sinner's descendents for actions they didn't commit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    Not at all, Wintermute. I have no idea how you got that, but I take it as a tribute to post-modernism.

    The principles of the Bible are always appropriate. What may change is how they apply to an ever changing social dynamic and how they might apply to different societies existing side by side. The principles of master-servant relationships now apply to a different employment dynamic, but the principle remains that bosses should treat their workers with dignity and they should be fairly compensated for their work.

    We still have laws of thermodynamics and have not rendered them irrelevant because they are now applied differently. My point is that both science and dynamic religion recognize a changing world and learn to deal with it within its current context. Scientific laws will continue to change with the discovery of new information and how we apply Biblical principles will change as social changes occur.

    I was responding Lynx's quote from Jefferson Davis in which he (religiously) justifed the racial nature of southern slavery and by which it seemed there was an implication that such thinking is dominant today. Heck, it wasn't even dominant thinking when Jefferson Davis said it.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    I'm not sure where that implication was made that most Christians think slavery was ok today, if so it's my fault and wasn't my intent.

    I know from first hand knowledge that some of it still exist in small measures in a few places even today--fortunately a vanishing and tiny minority.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    As to Lynx's posts:

    I felt the implication of the orginal post with the Jefferson Davis quote was to point out how wrongly the Bible had been interpreted by the South in an effort to justify slavery and, therefore, no interpretation of the Bible can be trusted.

    I related that to the changes in the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to show that we relied on a set incorrect scientific laws until such time as we had better information with which make a restatement of the laws. The error of the earlier law does not mean than we cannot trust anything in science. However, the incorrect formulation of the law did endure for far more than a decade and the correct statements took more than a decade to take hold.

    I would actually agree that scientific change is usually far more robust and dynamic than is social change. That, of course, makes it difficult to use one to judge the other.

    However, I think the comparison between thermodynamics and the abolition movement would show a more rapid development of social change as a result of the abolitionist movement than in the formation of the laws of thermodynamics to their present status, but I am not sure as to how much interest there is in thoroughly investgating this comparison.

    Pinpointing when the laws of thermodynamics were originally set down is not easy nor can we actually provide an absolute starting point of the modern (successful) abolition movement. However, appoximate dates find the underpinnings of those concepts being developed in about the mid-16th Century. I suppose we could argue these dates since I may have taken some liberties with the Wikipedia entries from

    Thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and

    Abolitionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I think the efforts of William Wilberforce in Great Britain in the late 1700s was actually the strongest force which ultimately led to the abolition movement in the U.S. that eventually culminated in the Civil War only 75 years later. Oddly, the major developments of the major principles from which the laws of thermodynamics were drawn took place in approximately the same time period. Einstein's work in relativity in the early 1900s formed the basis of the redevelopment of the early thermodynamic law relating to the creation or destruction of matter and energy. However, the earlier underpinnings of each development seemed to come to the fore in the mid 1500s.

    My point here, I think, is that the basis of the formation of the laws of thermodynamics have existed since the formation of the Universe and somewhat before the first Biblical writings on slavery in the Pentatuch. So it did take a little while for science to discover and formulate thermodynamics and then it took some time from their first statements to discovery their misstatement and correct them. I recall that even into the 1950s, the text books in my science classes still said that neither matter nor energy could be created or destroyed although this information was corrected in class. And it is only recently that we have determined that the law of entrophy applies only in a closed system which, apparently, the Universe is not!

    Even with the Wiki article, it is difficult to plot an accurate timeline relating to all the laws of thermodynamics. However, the overall development and eventual changes leading to the current laws can be said to have taken place from the mid 1500s to the mid 1900s -- about 400 years. Meanwhile the early actions in abolition also took place in about the mid 1500s and by the mid to late 1800s, a little over 300 years, brought us to the current state of abolition in Western Civilization though, as Lynx points out, there are still small vestiges of slavery being practiced.

    I don't know if this gets us anyplace in this discussion. Science and religion are both capable of gross error and misconceptions which we work hard to correct when discovered and eventually succeed inspite of resistance. Traditional beliefs and tradition science always resist change.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    I would actually agree that scientific change is usually far more robust and dynamic than is social change. That, of course, makes it difficult to use one to judge the other.

    However, I think the comparison between thermodynamics and the abolition movement would show a more rapid development of social change as a result of the abolitionist movement than in the formation of the laws of thermodynamics to their present status, but I am not sure as to how much interest there is in thoroughly investgating this comparison.
    I do agree that direct comparison perhaps isnt' very scientific...but to put my point one other way where perhaps it comes closer to being a better comparison.

    We know from research that physical punishment is not the best way to raise a child...yet millions (or should I say billions) cling to a religious based "spoil the rod...." mentality.

    We know from research that there are better ways other than external motivators (punishment) to change some criminal behavior, yet millions cling to a religious-based "eye for an eye" mentality (admittingly its softer in Christian/secular nations than others)

    We know from research that homosexuality is at least moderately due to genetics nor lead to dysfunctional society child raising etc., yet millions cling to a religious-based "(pick your disciple) said it's wrong" mentality as an excuse for bigotry.

    We know from economic research that women are every bit as capable of leading in our society and heading families, yet religious-based "women should be obedient to men" mentality is used as an excuse for sexism, domestic violence etc.

    We know an amazing number of facts about how nature works with near certainty, the most conspicuous being evolution, yet religious-based "genesis say...this or that" "arguments are routinely used to undermine our educational system and inflict wholesale destruction on the environment.

    We know from research that the best and most effective means to reduce child mortality and abortions is with use of contraceptives, especially for our youngest women, yet we see a religious-based "Be fruitful and multiply" mentality which thwarts those efforts across the globe.

    The dogmatism still practiced by many is well encapsulated by ""Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."— Martin Luther

    I could go on, but I hope my position is clear already. Traditional Religion's dogmatic unwillingness to change, even the face of overwhelming evidence, and deep of entrenchment across this or that denominations make it much less flexible than I hope science ever is.

    --
    Though we are far from the OP now, I hope religion continues to change from the worst of its historical religious views among many, towards more tolerant and evidence-based views just as it did 150 years ago.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I related that to the changes in the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to show that we relied on a set incorrect scientific laws until such time as we had better information with which make a restatement of the laws.
    I'm not aware of any incorrect statement of the laws of thermodynamics, as a part of accepted science, that were subsequently corrected.

    But it is true that a great deal of scientific effort is spent in establishing, checking, and rechecking all manner of findings, facts, premises, theories, assumptions, and laws - and some have been found through scientific research and argument to be wrong, and these have been have been removed from the canon, and are no longer found there, replaced with better.

    I am not aware of even interpretations of the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc, that have been found to be wrong and removed through religious study, and are thus no longer a part of accepted religion - let alone parts of the Bible itself, or other such books.

    The justifications for slavery are still there, available whenever needed.
    Last edited by iceaura; March 6th, 2012 at 12:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    Then maybe you should go do a study of the evolution of the laws of thermodynamics. I am not a physicist nor do I operate in any discipline of science and yet I know a little about thermodynamics though not how they are practically used by physicists.

    Under the First Law it was originally stated that neither matter nor energy could be destroyed or created. This was because science believed energy and matter were of two different natures. Einstein's special theory of relativity showed us that mass has an equivalent energy and that energy has an equivalent mass and that they are enterchangeable. Thus science had to add the caveat that either mass or energy could be changed in form.

    The Second Law of thermodynamics dealing with entropy was originally formulated in terms of closed systems. Subsequently, and recently for that matter, it has been determined that the laws relating to entropy function differently in an open system. Science originally believed that all systems were closed systems.

    Now those might seem to be minor changes, but it does mean that two thirds of the laws of thermodynamics have been altered in the last century. Likely, as we learn more about the Universe as a whole, we may find that laws we now use must be altered to explain phenomena we are currently unaware of.

    But I know and understand that the Bible neither condones nor condemns slavery. I don't think you can find a verse which concerning slavery which is not designed to regulate it in the cultural and social setting where slavery was an an accepted practice. This is perhaps in contrast with laws on divorce where the Bible clearly states that God is opposed to that and yet, He provides laws to regulate it.

    Iceaura said:

    I am not aware of even interpretations of the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc, that have been found to be wrong and removed through religious study, and are thus no longer a part of accepted religion - let alone parts of the Bible itself, or other such books.
    I am not aware of any Judo-Christian sect which is currently practising animal sacrifice.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Under the First Law it was originally stated that neither matter nor energy could be destroyed or created.
    I can't find that in von Clausius's original statement of the First Law. It was an underlying assumption, but the statement of the Law was an equation that holds still.

    The Second Law of thermodynamics dealing with entropy was originally formulated in terms of closed systems. Subsequently, and recently for that matter, it has been determined that the laws relating to entropy function differently in an open system. Science originally believed that all systems were closed systems.
    So the Second Law was correct as originally formulated.

    All this means is that you have to find better examples of science finding error and reacting. It doesn't change the essential problem you have, which is that science does change in light of its own discoveries and standards, routinely discarding error and incorporating improvements it has produced on its own. Religion does not.

    But I know and understand that the Bible neither condones nor condemns slavery. I don't think you can find a verse which concerning slavery which is not designed to regulate it in the cultural and social setting where slavery was an an accepted practice.
    That is called "condoning slavery" - no censure, no penalty, acceptance instead - explicit acceptance.

    I am not aware of any Judo-Christian sect which is currently practising animal sacrifice.
    The relevant Biblical texts and the interpretations remain. They have not been removed, declared to be in error, etc. Besides: many people regard Voodoo and related sects around the Caribbean as Judeo-Christian - certainly they are heavily influenced by Catholicism - and they do animal sacrifice.
    .
    Last edited by iceaura; March 6th, 2012 at 05:10 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    More context...

    "November. 21, 1861, sermon, Thomas Smyth, minister of the Second Presbyterian Church of Charleston, attacked the Declaration of Independence, according to scholar H. Shelton Smith in In His Image, But . . . Smyth summarized the argument like this:
    “God is introduced to give dignity and emphasis . . . and then He is banished,” said [Thomas Smyth]. It was this very atheistic Declaration which had inspired the “higher law” doctrine of the radical antislavery men. If the mischievous abolitionists had only followed the Bible instead of the godless Declaration, they would have been bound to acknowledge that human bondage was divinely ordained. The mission of southerners was therefore clear; they must defend the word of God against abolitionist infidels.



    "November 29, 1860, sermon at the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, Louisiana, when the Reverend Benjamin Morgan Palmer declared it a duty to defend slavery. He criticized abolitionist ideas, then:
    Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and Religion. The Abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type. Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights. From a thousand Jacobin Clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law. . . . This spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims, and slavery for its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the air: “liberty, equality, fraternity,” which simply interpreted, means bondage, confiscation, and massacre. With its tricolor waving in the breeze—it waits to inaugurate its reign of terror. To the South the high position is assigned of defending, before all nations, the cause of all religions and of all truths. In this trust, we are resisting the power which wars against constitutions and laws and compacts, against Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the state, and the church, which blasphemously invades the prerogatives of God, and rebukes the Most High for the errors of his administration. . . ."

    The Christian Origin of Racism: Atheist Abolotionist Serpents in Slaves' Eden Part 4
    Great. Now all you have to do is explain why slavery ANTEDATES Christianity and explain widespread abolitionist sentiment NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line based upon Christian arguments. Then you are home free.

    Of course, slavery is a big issue. The practice of "crimping" was not uncommon and, involving involuntary servitude as it did, was arguably a form of slavery, one which antedated and survived chattel slavery in the South.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimp_(recruitment)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm not sure where that implication was made that most Christians think slavery was ok today, if so it's my fault and wasn't my intent.

    I know from first hand knowledge that some of it still exist in small measures in a few places even today--fortunately a vanishing and tiny minority.
    Hey, Christianity is widespread today and slavery less so, by your own admission- another great big hole in your argument that the former causes the latter. But this is not your only silly theory- "yours" as in the sense of adopting or adhering to, not as an originator, of course. After all it is not YOUR book you will write a review of, unless it comes from your library, in which case it is yours in the sense that you OWN the silly damned thing. I hope I have explained myself well enough to prevent being BANNED again, dammit.

    If I am in error, a simple correction would be appreciated instead of another petty demonstration of your "moderatorial" ire.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Lynx Fox said:

    And god's will because they wore the mark/curse of Cain as their dark skin, the official doctrine of most Protestant groups and central to the pro-slavery arguments.

    "We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority...."

    "We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him—our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude ...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be.
    "

    Senator Jefferson Davis on the Senate Floor, February 29, 1860
    I had not noticed this post until Aristarchus commented.

    I would like to point out that we do not hold modern scientists in contempt or hold them up to criticism because some scientist in 1920 quoted the old laws of thermodynamics which we now understand to be have been erroneously based on a previous understandings of observed data.

    It sort of frustrates me that scientifics can excuse errors and/or changes in science based on new understandings of the information while religion (Christianity, especially) is villified because of older thinking which has been supplanted and changed by newer applications to society.

    This is a classic example of the double standard applied by scientism as has been mentioned on more than one thread in this forum.
    Dayton .. Christianity never held any man inferior: "all have sinned." The senator quoted may have been part of a sect which thought they worshipped God, but he obviously was not a Christian. Please remember, that the Jews who killed Christians genuinely thought they were doing God's will. Such is blindness. There is only one way of knowing Christianity, and that is to read the New Testament. During 'worship' services of most denominational sects a far greater emphasis is placed on the Old Testament than the New, and very often the words of the New Testament are twisted .. one easy example is the water Jesus turned to wine turned to non-alcoholic grape juice by some baptist sects. "Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof .. from such turn away." Satan appears as an angel of light.

    Even the Jewish religion was not discriminatory of race .. King David's father of the flesh King Solomon was a black man, his mother a black queen from Africa .. in the pure form of Judaism race is not a factor, because any person from any nation or race who converts becomes a Jew, and even those born Jews must believe in their religion to be Jews. Modern Judaism seems to be a
    nationalistic, racist sect, however, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, Orthodox Jews refuse to recognize the state of Israel as God's nation.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    I am not aware of even interpretations of the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc, that have been found to be wrong and removed through religious study, and are thus no longer a part of accepted religion - let alone parts of the Bible itself, or other such books.

    The justifications for slavery are still there, available whenever needed.
    The changes from old practices to new are still there too, iceaura, if you would like to find them. Perhaps we should burn all historical documents to enshrine our brave new world?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm not sure where that implication was made that most Christians think slavery was ok today, if so it's my fault and wasn't my intent.

    I know from first hand knowledge that some of it still exist in small measures in a few places even today--fortunately a vanishing and tiny minority.
    Yes, self-enslavements to material lusts is one example. The majority of sexual prostitutions' self-enslavement to drug addiction is another. The enslavement of children to patriotism is another (without patriot youth, who would fight wars?)
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Great. Now all you have to do is explain why slavery ANTEDATES Christianity and explain widespread abolitionist sentiment NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line based upon Christian arguments. Then you are home free.
    I already stated twice it went both ways...and after 1800+ years well, it was about time (coincidently after establishments of secular governments). But as Ice puts it, the old bible-based support is still there, not stricken or replaced in the bible, and available the next time our society hits the crapper and some Christian decides to interpret people's morphology for the mark of Cain, perhaps it will be dark skin again, red hair, or double eyelids.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Great. Now all you have to do is explain why slavery ANTEDATES Christianity and explain widespread abolitionist sentiment NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line based upon Christian arguments. Then you are home free.
    I already stated twice it went both ways...and after 1800+ years well, it was about time (coincidently after establishments of secular governments). But as Ice puts it, the old bible-based support is still there, not stricken or replaced in the bible, and available the next time our society hits the crapper and some Christian decides to interpret people's morphology for the mark of Cain, perhaps it will be dark skin again, red hair, or double eyelids.
    Or because they're Arabs with oil? Should we burn the books, Lynx, or keep them as instruction in how to move on from darkness?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    I don't think Lynx_Fox or Iceaura actually understand what is going on here.

    Let's say I tell my 15-year-old daughter, "Apple of my eye, if you are going to become sexually active and participate in premarital sex, you or your partner should take steps to prevent an unwanted pregnancy."

    Now then, have I condoned or condemned premarital sex?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    I don't think Lynx_Fox or Iceaura actually understand what is going on here.

    Let's say I tell my 15-year-old daughter, "Apple of my eye, if you are going to become sexually active and participate in premarital sex, you or your partner should take steps to prevent an unwanted pregnancy."

    Now then, have I condoned or condemned premarital sex?
    Ssssshhhh, you will only get yourself BANNED for disagreement. It is pointless to attempt to persuade either of them in my experience. And parenthetically, unwanted pregnancy is not the only nor the most grave adverse consequence of sex, nor has it ever been.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    It's often an excuse used by Christian apologist to avoid facing the difficult issue..."but but but...they weren't really slaves.... " The bible is full of slavery and the history shows it certainly practiced by the Hebrew in the OT until the 19th century by many Christians. Some contemporary groups only recently faced up to it, such as the formal apology by the Southern Baptist Convention in the mid-1990s.
    And why the SOUTHERN Baptists? Because they were the Secessionist wing of the sect which split from the Northern wing over the question, upon which latter you remain silent, Mr. Cherrypicker. By all means continue to ignore the numerous examples which do not back up your argument- it SO enhances your credibility upon other matters.

    American Baptist Churches USA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    The argument is Christians held slaves and used persuasive religious-based arguments even in our highest political offices (the Senate). It's not a matter of cherry picking---All I needed is one example to make that case. A million examples on the opposite side do not matter and others were willing to show that material (though unnecessary because it was never a point of contention). Unfortunately, there were not only one example of Christian's holding slaves, and using the bible to support their position, there were millions backed by huge denominations of Christianity as their official position--all of which helped to fuel the bloodiest war in American history.

    In another splendid example, (remember only one was technically necessary--but alas it was quite common) it was even referred to in the Texas Declaration of the Causes of Secession:
    "That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 6th, 2012 at 06:56 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    Lynx, you keep jumping around talking about slavery in America up until the Civil war and somehow seem to blame that on Christianity based on some peoples' improper use of the Bible for their own purposes. If I show you one atheist who has committed murder or rape does that mean all atheists agree that they should be able to commit murder or rape or that atheism accepts, condones and encourages those practices. Under your rules, all I need is one example of an atheist doing this.

    Your logic here is absolutely stupid which is not what I would expect from an intelligent person such as yourself. Showing one instance of someone justifying slavery through the Bible is not proof that the Bible condones slavery. Even showing a minority group would not do so. If I show you one person in the abolitionist movement who used the Bible to prove just the opposite, does that mean the Bible condemns slavery? In which case I point you to William Wilberforce.

    It would seem to me that you could recognize that the victors here were the people who spoke out about the wrongness of slavery and the wrongness of claimed racial inferiority often using the Bible as their basis. The Bible condones neither of these practices and Christians have always been the major participants in the early movements to end such practices and injustices.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    What book of unquestioning authority and seemingly unchangeable doctrine did the atheist get that idea from? You see slavery as wrong, and I agree with you. The main point is many Christians disagreed with your interpretation, than and apparently up until at least 1994--ow...and that foundation is still in the scripture available for "misinterpretations" in the future. No such dogmatic sources exist for atheist. And I've never said they are all good people, nor made opposite claim for all Christians.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Showing one instance of someone justifying slavery through the Bible is not proof that the Bible condones slavery
    Correct. The people who hold up the Bible as their justification may be incorrect. Let us consult the Bible itself:

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners
    who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident
    foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them
    as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.
    You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives,
    must never be treated this way.
    (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
    If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free
    in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was
    single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go
    free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then
    his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a
    slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh
    year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave
    may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would
    rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God.
    Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an
    awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
    (Exodus
    21:2-6 NLT)
    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of
    six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may
    allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to
    foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the
    slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her
    as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries
    her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail
    to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may
    leave as a free woman without making any payment.
    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the
    slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave
    survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own
    property.
    Well, there you go. The Bible condones slavery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    Lynx_Fox asked:
    What book of unquestioning authority and seemingly unchangeable doctrine did the atheist get that idea from?
    Well, like all atheists, he obtained it from his own book which he formulated by taking bits and pieces of whatever other book he took a shine to while rejecting bits and pieces that he decided he did not want to conform to. This is not, of course, an unchanging line but the slippery slope of ad hoc, individualistic, relatavistic morality. That is, rather, the moral code of atheism -- do whatever the hell seems right to you.

    Nevertheless, I am not exactly sure what you are actually trying to show. It is not obviously apparent when one tries to outline the premises upon which you have drawn a rather undefined conclusion. It appears you are blaming the practice of slavery on the Bible because the Bible defines the proper relationship between masters and servants.

    As someone else already pointed out, slavery predates the Bible, so where did those people get the idea? It appears that you (and others) are suggesting that the Bible was the inventor of slavery. Slavery abounded in Biblical times and was practiced by numerous cultures who never read the Jewish scriptures, so how did they figure it out?

    I'm just having a hard time figuring out how you come to that conclusion based on the fact that Jefferson Davis (wrongly) used the Bible, after the fact, to support the practice in the southern plantation society. Was Jefferson Davis a spokeman for the Assyrians, too?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    Nevertheless, I am not exactly sure what you are actually trying to show
    I think i've been pretty clear. The bible is intepreted many ways, one was its use by huge numbers of Christians to support slavery--its regulation in the OT, which of it's own right condones it, and Jesus's lack of moral courage to comdemn it, allowed for that intepretations. That is a simple matter of fact.

    Of separate concern for all modern Christians and non-Christians alike is dogmatic views and inability to change sciptural verbs used for those proslavery arguments; they remain the stalking horse for future potential human rights violations. Islam's problem is even more profound, because the Arab world reads it's religious text their original form, not even able to soften the "bad" parts much as Christiany has done with modern translations.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 7th, 2012 at 11:09 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    Well, again, (and I hate to have to keep pointing this out) just because we have regulations relating to a social practice does not necessarily mean that there is society-wide approval (or disapproval) of that practice. Sometimes, (perhaps most of the time) the regulations are more likely rooted in disapproval with at least some aspect of the current practice.

    We have all sorts of laws regulating the use of alcohol, so what does that say about about our society? Does it mean we condone or discourage the use of alcohol? And how does that compare to a society which does not have any regulations on the use of alcohol? Does that provide us with a clue as to whether non-regulating society condones or discourages the use of alcohol? Is a society which has regulations concerning any cultural practice more or less permissive of the practice than a society which has no regulations?

    If it were not possible to abuse the use of alcohol, there were be no need to regulate its use. The question thus becomes does regulation encourage or discorage the practice? To some extent, I think the possible answers are yes and/or no and/or maybe. And the answer may be far more dependent upon the culture to which it is applied rather than the intrinsic language of the regulation itself. The Bible seems to encourage moderate use of alcohol while discouraging excesses in its use.

    When it comes to the regulation of slavery in the Bible, you must apply it to the culture and context in which the regulations were set forth and the culture in which you suggest that Jesus lacked the moral courage to condemn slavery. There are some social battles which cannot be profitably fought at the wrong time in history. It would have made as much sense to them as advocating speed limits on ox carts.

    As Solomon tells us in Ecclesiastes, everything has its season and its purpose. Slavery had a long season in which it was an economic cultural reality. For some, being a slave was better than the alternative which was starvation and lack of shelter. The culture did not have huge industrial enterprizes which could employ large portions of the population. I think it is rather important that we look at what would have been the social and economic impact to have attempted to end slavery in Biblical times or anytime prior to the serious beginnings of the abolitionist movements in the mid 1500s.

    It is difficult to discuss this issue without looking to the Bible for some context and reference, not only in overall context and reference but also in the specific context and reference.

    First of all, when it comes to social practices, the Bible is a book of principles which are then specifically applied to the society into which they were introduced. As you sort of point out, Lynx, followers of the Bible seem to be better able to adapt the principles to changing cultural and social practices (although I disagree with your reasoning) than do followers of the Koran. (Even Baptists permit dancing today!!!!)

    I don't think the adaptability comes from "modern" translations so much as it comes from an ever increasing knowledge of the cultures to which the Bible was written. It is also more that, because it is a book of principles, they can be effectively applied to changing social and cultural developments. That is in contrast, I think, to the Koran which is expressed more in a series of rigid practices rather than the principles behind the practices. If I were to contrast the two, I would suggest that the Koran is a book of religous practices similar to the Old Testament, while the Bible is an expression of religious principles.

    But I digress somewhat. It would be my opinion that we do not usually attempt to regulate something which we approve of and with which we have no problem. It would seem to me that you, Lynx, are suggesting that regulation of a practice implies tacit approval of the practice whereas I would suggest that regulation implies tacit disapproval. Historically, I just don't see any confirmation of the idea that we (or God for that matter) regulate something of which we approve.

    Regulation can be a neutral position where neither approval nor disapproval is appropriate or necessary. Speed limits neither express approval nor disapproval of operating an automobile. Although the city in which I dwell seems hell-bent on trying to eliminate the use of gas operated vehicles on streets which are suppose to be maintained by gas taxes, but are more and more devoted encouraging non-taxed bicycle traffic while refusing to maintain streets. I don't think regulation ever implies approval, but rather grants permission within prescribed parameters.

    Speed limits are merely the expression of principles of safe driving conduct. We also have, underlying speed limits, the basic rule of driving below the speed limit if conditions so dictate. We are not allowed to drive 70 miles an hour down a snowy, icy freeway. The principle always overules a specific application of the principle.

    My point, here again, is that regulation in and of itself is not a statement of approval or disapproval although regulation is more likely to arise in the face of disapproval than in the face of approval.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    We have all sorts of laws regulating the use of alcohol, so what does that say about about our society? Does it mean we condone or discourage the use of alcohol?
    Our society condones the use of alcohol, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    My point, here again, is that regulation in and of itself is not a statement of approval or disapproval although regulation is more likely to arise in the face of disapproval than in the face of approval.
    Do you have an example of approved cultural practices which are not regulated, in any society?

    I can provide many examples of disapproved activities that are not regulated, in the Bible - there are no instructions for proper cooking of pork, committing adultery, or praying to idols, for three.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    iceaura said:

    Our society condones the use of alcohol, yes.
    Your conclusion is based on your knowledge of our society, not on the given information.

    iceaura asked:
    Do you have an example of approved cultural practices which are not regulated, in any society?

    I can provide many examples of disapproved activities that are not regulated, in the Bible - there are no instructions for proper cooking of pork, committing adultery, or praying to idols, for three.

    What is your point here? And how does it relate to what I said? Eating pork, and committing adultry and praying to idols are all explicity prohibited in the Bible. What regulations other than the prohibition would you need?

    What we are discussing is disapproved practices which are tolerated. And does tolerating a practice and regulating it implicate tacit approval of that practice? Can regulating a practice without banning it lead to a determination as to whether that practice is approved of or merely tolerated?

    Based purely on the existence of regulations, there is just no logical formula which allows you to draw a valid conclusion one way or the other unless you have more information.

    The logical formula which as been presented here appears to be:

    Given A. Society xyz regulates practice abc.
    Given B. Society xyz permits practice abc.
    C. Therefore, Society xyz approves of practice abc.

    Based on A and B, it is equally possible to conclude that Society xyz disapproves of practices abc. Neither conclusion can be drawn from the known givens. Nor can the fact that Society qrs approves of practice abc show that Society xyz approves of the practice.

    We regulate practices to which we have no objection other than potential abuses, e.g. automobile use. We also regulate things of which we mostly disapprove, finding it is easier for society to tolerate and regulate than it is to attempt to ban . The Bible, for example, disapproves of divorce and yet there were rules concerning how it was to be done and the responsibilities of the parties involved. However, we know this because the Bible speaks out against divorce.

    I don't think our society actually approves of and encourages the use of alcohol by condoning and allowing it within certain parameters (you do know about prohibition?). The implication in the slavery discussion was that Bible tacitly encouraged and approved of slavery by allowing it within certain parameters.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    regulation in and of itself is not a statement of approval or disapproval
    It means that the society has decided to tolerate the behavior. When a society disapproves, it prohibits the behavior and assigns penalties for those who engage in it. When it approves, it gives awards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Lynx .. please name one Christian you know personally in the flesh who approves of or who approved of slavery. If you cannot, you admit that all your blatherings are ideas inherited from books and t.v. shows; and seeing as how you profess belief that books can be altered to delete appropriate matter, none of your belief is substantial in any way, UNLESS you can name ONE Christian you have known in this life in person who approves of slavery.

    And, Dayton Turner, please use fewer words .. your posts are much too time consuming to read, so you are losing potential adherants for your arguments.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    regulation in and of itself is not a statement of approval or disapproval
    It means that the society has decided to tolerate the behavior. When a society disapproves, it prohibits the behavior and assigns penalties for those who engage in it. When it approves, it gives awards.
    No. Those who are in control of the society impose prohibitions, control by force of arms of intimidation.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    This is getting very frustrating. Does anyone here understand the meaning and practice of tolerance?????

    Tolerance is not the same as acceptance or approval. In fact, if you accept and approve of something, there is no need to tolerate it.

    Nor does tolerance imply that what is being tolerated is condoned. If you condone something, there is no need to tolerate it.

    There seems to be a large segment of society today which thinks that tolerance can be displayed only by acceptance and that tolerance implies tacit approval of whatever is being tolerated. They think the only way you can tolerate something is to condone it.

    This erroneous understanding of tolerance has, on this thread, been used to suggest that since God tolerated slavery in ancient times when it was an economic and social necessity to the cultures of those times, that he approved and encourage the practice.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    This is getting very frustrating. Does anyone here understand the meaning and practice of tolerance?????

    Tolerance is not the same as acceptance or approval. In fact, if you accept and approve of something, there is no need to tolerate it.

    Nor does tolerance imply that what is being tolerated is condoned. If you condone something, there is no need to tolerate it.

    There seems to be a large segment of society today which thinks that tolerance can be displayed only by acceptance and that tolerance implies tacit approval of whatever is being tolerated. They think the only way you can tolerate something is to condone it.

    This erroneous understanding of tolerance has, on this thread, been used to suggest that since God tolerated slavery in ancient times when it was an economic and social necessity to the cultures of those times, that he approved and encourage the practice.
    I agree with you Dayton except you have fallen into the trap of "it's me against the rest of you." Also, slavery was never an economic or social necessity, it was a function of greed and empowerment .. a person's own personal empire, status and wealth, like shiny cars and big screen t.v.s and Blackberries and slaves..
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    AIE and Daytonturner.
    What we think doesn't really matter. Just the fact that we can have an intelligent conversation over the nuanced differences between approving, condoning and tolerance, means it quite open to interpretations. Even if we accept, as the lowest common denominator in this post--tolerance for slavery, consider the implications: it's tolerance for domestic abuse of women and children, tolerance for selling of your daughters, tolerance for beating your slaves so long as it's not so severe they survive for 3 days, tolerance so profound that master's even after that abuse of women, slaves and their own family can still get to heaven. They are Interpretations which have been used in the past and may to be used in the future the next time one peoples decides to oppress another because of some difference in people considered the "mark of Cain," born of dogmatic views of the "unchangeable bible," and failure of the savior to make a clean and unambiguous condemnation, as he did for other things.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 9th, 2012 at 04:12 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096

    Aristarchus said:
    I agree with you Dayton except you have fallen into the trap of "it's me against the rest of you." Also, slavery was never an economic or social necessity, it was a function of greed and empowerment .. a person's own personal empire, status and wealth, like shiny cars and big screen t.v.s and Blackberries and slaves..
    And you have fallen into the trap of judging a completely different ancient culture and social structure based on the values and circumstances of our own present-day culture. Your picture of slavery is not accurate as it might relate to the entire picture of slavery as practiced by all people throughout history. I think your view of the role of slavery both economically and socially is clouded by our present thinking rather than attempting to understand its role and importance in a different time and culture.

    And sometimes, I agree, I take a position of "me against the rest of them." Many times on many threads I have been the only Christian posting on that thread attempting to point out the errors of thinking being displayed by lack of understanding and inability to relate to different view points.

    Let's face it, those people did not have a local employment agency. There were no unions or employment laws. Slavery was the prime method of employment in ancient days. Unless you have some understanding of their society and cultural needs, it is very difficult to relate to their customs and practices as necessary for the times when they are no longer necessary in our times.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    Lynx_Fox said:
    it's tolerance for domestic abuse of women and children, tolerance for selling of your daughters, tolerance for beating your slaves so long as it's not so severe they survive for 3 days, tolerance so profound that master's even after that abuse of women, slaves and their own family can still get to heaven.
    If this is your understanding of what the Bible allowed slave owners to do, I can understand your revulsion. Actually, the Bible demanded that slave owners treat their charges with dignity; it prohibited them from abusing slaves; and it required them to justly recompense them for their services. Plus, slaves were to be set free after six (maybe seven) years of service.

    Now then if you have examples of slave owners not doing that, you must in turn consider that they were not following the Biblical standards for slave owners. When you see someone going 100 mph down the highway, surely you do not consider that the traffic laws are responsible for their actions even though the traffic laws do permit driving down the highway.

    My feeling here is that you have adopted an idea that is just plain contrary and diametrically opposed to what the Bible taught and you are just not going to let go of your erroneous understanding choosing, rather, to blame the right teaching of the Bible for malpractice by people who did not follow the teaching. I guess you are right, if the speed limit was not 65 mph, people would not go 100 mph. It is only because we have speed limits that people exceed them. If we did not have speed limits, no one would ever exceed them. What kind of thinking is that? If God had not put restrictions on slavery, there would never have been any abuse of slavery. Maybe there never would have been slavery. Were it not for God's restrictions on slavery, we would not have domestic abuse of women and children. Were it not for those restrictions on masters, employers today could demand that we work seven days a week, 14 hours a day. If we could just go back and wipe out those damnable Biblical laws concerning masters and servants there would be no need for unions or labor laws. You seem unable to accept that the Biblical teaching forms the backbone of our current labor laws -- dignity for workers, just compensation, no abuse of workers. Are not those things, the things our labor laws attempt to ensure?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    regulation in and of itself is not a statement of approval or disapproval
    It means that the society has decided to tolerate the behavior. When a society disapproves, it prohibits the behavior and assigns penalties for those who engage in it. When it approves, it gives awards.
    No. Those who are in control of the society impose prohibitions, control by force of arms of intimidation.
    Right. Prohibitions are enforced by people with weapons, or else they are kind of useless.

    Regulations are society saying "Well, we tolerate this happening, but just so it doesn't get out of control, here's some restrictions." Breaking the restrictions isn't as rigidly enforced as breaking a prohibition.

    If you read what I've quoted from Exodus and Leviticus, what you notice are restrictions on slavery, not a prohibition. There's even instructions for selling your daughters into slavery. As it is regulated, it is condoned and tolerated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Actually, the Bible demanded that slave owners treat their charges with dignity; it prohibited them from abusing slaves;
    come on...I know you've read the bible at some point:
    " When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21 "
    Beating a slave with a rod so they survive for a day or two is NOT treating them with dignity nor is selling your daughter into slavery for forever. Even progressive Chistians can't crawfish from the implications.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    [QUOTE=daytonturner;312608]
    Aristarchus said:
    I agree with you Dayton except you have fallen into the trap of "it's me against the rest of you." Also, slavery was never an economic or social necessity, it was a function of greed and empowerment .. a person's own personal empire, status and wealth, like shiny cars and big screen t.v.s and Blackberries and slaves..
    Many times on many threads I have been the only Christian posting on that thread attempting to point out the errors of thinking being displayed by lack of understanding and inability to relate to different view points.

    QUOTE]

    I guess, Dayton, you have missed the many posts I've made admitting to belief in Jesus Christ and pointing out the differences between Old Testament beliefs and New Testament.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    regulation in and of itself is not a statement of approval or disapproval
    It means that the society has decided to tolerate the behavior. When a society disapproves, it prohibits the behavior and assigns penalties for those who engage in it. When it approves, it gives awards.
    No. Those who are in control of the society impose prohibitions, control by force of arms of intimidation.
    There's even instructions for selling your daughters into slavery. As it is regulated, it is condoned and tolerated.
    Wintermute, when you make a statement like that don't you think you should provide a reference for substantiation?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    and failure of the savior to make a clean and unambiguous condemnation, as he did for other things.
    Lynx, Jesus never condemned anyone, and commanded his followers, "Condemn not." He did lay out a completely different path than that followed by the Old Testament Mosaic law. Regarding slavery or bondage of any kind: John 8:36
    "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."
    John 8:35-37 (in Context) John 8 (Whole Chapter)

    Also, please realize that failure to move from the Old Testament to the New Testament is generally motivated by "love of money, which is the root of all evil." Slavery is a good example. War is another. To justify war and the slavery of military draft laws the Old Testament is held out as the standard, not the New. War is ALWAYS about love of money, NEVER about freedom, and anyone who thinks otherwise is blinded by lust.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    Lynx_Fox said:
    come on...I know you've read the bible at some point:
    " When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21 "
    Beating a slave with a rod so they survive for a day or two is NOT treating them with dignity nor is selling your daughter into slavery for forever. Even progressive Chistians can't crawfish from the implications.
    If those was the only two verses that dealt with this issue, the implications which you seem to be suggest would be accurate. One does not need, however, to "crawfish" to show how what you seem to think they imply is not what they actually mean.

    The first part says that if the slave dies from the beating, the owner shall be punished. That punishment is found in Genesis 21:12 "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." I suspect your "implication" for this part of the verse you quote was that the Bible allowed the master to kill his slave and go off scott free. (I hope you note my use of irony in "scott free.") However, just the opposite is true. If the master killed his slave, he was to be executed for it. Hardly a permissive practice nor a protection afforded by any other culture.

    As to the master suffering no punishment if the slave survived -- we find in Ex. 21-26,27 that if the servant were injured he was to be set free. Those verses mention loss of an eye or loss of a tooth, but the principle was that if the servant were abused or injured, he was to be set free.

    Another interesting thing here is that Ex: 21:20-21 is the only place where the word slave is used, at least in the KJV. All other reverences to people who were hirelings are servants or bondservance or maidservants or bondsmaids.

    Now then, as to the selling of daughters as mentioned in Ex: 21-7, if you read the following versus you find that she was to be betrothed either to the master or his son and that even if her husband took or had other wives, she was not to lose her status. Oddly enough, in later cultures, rather than the father receiving money when his daughter was married, he had to pay to get rid of her in a practice called dowery.

    What you have done here Lynx is take verses out of context, stood them alone and failed to examine how they were applied in that culture.

    I might point out that such rules were not applied in Roman culture. So -- if you had been a poor person in those days, a person with no property or status, would you rather have spent the rest of your life in the galley of a Roman war ship or be a servant to an Hebrew who was required to set you free in the seventh year of your service?

    My challenge here is for you to find the record of any other culture or society of ancient times which had any similar protections for servants or slaves.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Lynx_Fox said:
    come on...I know you've read the bible at some point:
    " When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21 "
    Beating a slave with a rod so they survive for a day or two is NOT treating them with dignity nor is selling your daughter into slavery for forever. Even progressive Chistians can't crawfish from the implications.
    If those was the only two verses that dealt with this issue, the implications which you seem to be suggest would be accurate. One does not need, however, to "crawfish" to show how what you seem to think they imply is not what they actually mean.

    The first part says that if the slave dies from the beating, the owner shall be punished. That punishment is found in Genesis 21:12 "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." I suspect your "implication" for this part of the verse you quote was that the Bible allowed the master to kill his slave and go off scott free. (I hope you note my use of irony in "scott free.") However, just the opposite is true. If the master killed his slave, he was to be executed for it. Hardly a permissive practice nor a protection afforded by any other culture.

    As to the master suffering no punishment if the slave survived -- we find in Ex. 21-26,27 that if the servant were injured he was to be set free. Those verses mention loss of an eye or loss of a tooth, but the principle was that if the servant were abused or injured, he was to be set free.

    Another interesting thing here is that Ex: 21:20-21 is the only place where the word slave is used, at least in the KJV. All other reverences to people who were hirelings are servants or bondservance or maidservants or bondsmaids.

    Now then, as to the selling of daughters as mentioned in Ex: 21-7, if you read the following versus you find that she was to be betrothed either to the master or his son and that even if her husband took or had other wives, she was not to lose her status. Oddly enough, in later cultures, rather than the father receiving money when his daughter was married, he had to pay to get rid of her in a practice called dowery.

    What you have done here Lynx is take verses out of context, stood them alone and failed to examine how they were applied in that culture.

    I might point out that such rules were not applied in Roman culture. So -- if you had been a poor person in those days, a person with no property or status, would you rather have spent the rest of your life in the galley of a Roman war ship or be a servant to an Hebrew who was required to set you free in the seventh year of your service?

    My challenge here is for you to find the record of any other culture or society of ancient times which had any similar protections for servants or slaves.
    Dayton, this post is VERY well done. You are needed very badly on this forum. As an aside, I'm also a fan of the King James bible.
    Last edited by Aristarchus in Exile; March 10th, 2012 at 11:02 AM.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    32
    I think that people are used as slaves even now in the modern world, and in the modern countries, they are not divided by race, or religion but rather by class...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by slavenenco View Post
    I think that people are used as slaves even now in the modern world, and in the modern countries, they are not divided by race but rather by class...
    Absolutely, Slavenenco. The modern slave's token of freedom is called 'the vote' with which they elect the head slave who serves the masters who are ordained by God to subjugate the slaves to the slaves' own lusts.

    However, each of us can be free. "For whom the Lord sets free is free indeed."
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    Out of context BS. Beating someone nearly to death and selling your daughters into lifetime of of slavery is NOT SHOWING them dignity...no matter what the circumstance or culture. That there are penalties if the beating is too severe don't have a darn thing do with your claim that it's showing dignity to the slave. It just established that god had some limits--limits that could be and were exported to more modern times as a defense for enslaving others, and correctly saying it was in accordance with god's laws as an excuse to enforce its morally bankrupt, anti-human rights agenda. Your agreement with the cultural relativistic position for this uncomfortable reality of what the bible actually says is pretty funny AIE and also irrelevant to the opinions of the 19th century slave owners--too bad though more Christians don't apply such thinking to the myriad of other things Evangelicals use to preach intolerance of others.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Out of context BS. Beating someone nearly to death and selling your daughters into lifetime of of slavery is NOT SHOWING them dignity...no matter what the circumstance or culture. That there are penalties if the beating is too severe don't have a darn thing do with your claim that it's showing dignity to the slave. It just established that god had some limits--limits that could be and were exported to more modern times as a defense for enslaving others, and correctly saying it was in accordance with god's laws as an excuse to enforce its morally bankrupt, anti-human rights agenda. Your agreement with the cultural relativistic position for this uncomfortable reality of what the bible actually says is pretty funny AIE and also irrelevant to the opinions of the 19th century slave owners--too bad though more Christians don't apply such thinking to the myriad of other things Evangelicals use to preach intolerance of others.
    As a soldier, Lynx, unless you remained a Private, you were basically a slaveowner with slaves you were in a position to command to their death. Have you repented of that part of your life? If not, perhaps your blindness to the complete word of God is due to pride in your past creating hardness of your heart. Also, the bible simply does not tolerate some things .. homosexuality among them. Should the "evangelicals" tell homosexual men to 'go ahead, enjoy yourselves' while consequences like AIDS lurks? Don't you think to do so would make even a non-religious man an inhuman monster?

    By the way, even modern employers have been known to physically assault employees, can you contrast this to throwing a slave under a two-ton block of stone to grease the path towards the top of the pyramid?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    regulation in and of itself is not a statement of approval or disapproval
    It means that the society has decided to tolerate the behavior. When a society disapproves, it prohibits the behavior and assigns penalties for those who engage in it. When it approves, it gives awards.
    No. Those who are in control of the society impose prohibitions, control by force of arms of intimidation.
    There's even instructions for selling your daughters into slavery. As it is regulated, it is condoned and tolerated.
    Wintermute, when you make a statement like that don't you think you should provide a reference for substantiation?

    Scroll up to post #67.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    As a soldier, Lynx, unless you remained a Private, you were basically a slaveowner with slaves you were in a position to command to their death.
    A position I volunteered for so (my daddy didn't sell me), among other things, Christians could continue to obfuscate the brutality of those they think were following their "loving" sky god" mythology--a right under the US Constitution I dearly love. Beyond the specifics though, my biggest complaint about those believes is their dogmatism, unwillingness to even acknowledge the inherent problems of those text and only the weakest of system to change them though new translations. To draw in some of the early comparisons, science in the face of new evidence, changes its "beliefs," it doesn't' make excuse for earlier beliefs other than to say they didnt' have the instruments or reasoning well enough developed--no one claims that wrong ideas were actually right.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    You know, Lynx, your comments are so far out of tune with reality, I just don't know where you can be pulling them from. The Christian world -- Western Civilization -- does not practice any of those things and Christians have been the main movers in changing them. What you seem to think is that these passages should be excised from the Bible because some have used them improperly. Should we also excise all those provisions of the U.S. Constitution which have been improperly used? To what end should any of history be excised -- so liberals can have a free hand at rewriting history? No changes are made through "new translations." "New translations" are directed at putting the texts into modern language so as to correct misunderstandings. When the KJV uses cleave it means to join together because that is what it meant when that translation was constructed; in modern day when we say cleave, we mean to separate so modern translations use a word meaning join rather than a word meaning separate. Do you object to that?

    You use the same defense for errors in science. Are you aware of civilized people who are today speaking out in favor of something like slavery any more than we have medical people advocating blood letting? Are Jews and Christians wrong for not practicing slavery while medicine is right for no longer practicing blood letting.

    Obviously, it is useless to discuss something of historical significance with someone who thinks history should be forgotten or rewritten.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    The Christian world -- Western Civilization -- does not practice any of those things and Christians have been the main movers in changing them. What you seem to think is that these passages should be excised from the Bible because some have used them improperly. Should we also excise all those provisions of the U.S. Constitution which have been improperly used?
    A rather poor example--because we added the 13th through 15th amendments to the Constitution thereby replacing the old interpretations so slavery was stopped, the states could no longer violate the bill of rights and civil rights to vote would be preserved. What's been added to scripture after 1865 years of human rights violations to amend those who want to dig out those old provisions?

    Obviously, it is useless to discuss something of historical significance with someone who thinks history should be forgotten or rewritten.
    If it was only of historic significance we'd have no debate.

    But we can agree to end this conversation if you wish. I think religion has been of tremendous value at the worst of times to preserve knowledge and add stability to societies but it's strength are also it's greatest weakness, inflexible doctrines in the face of new information about better ways to do things. All that being said, I'm glad you're here and applaud your progressive views about Christianity--even when I disagree with them.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by aristarchus
    Lynx, Jesus never condemned anyone,
    He condemned the moneychangers in the Temple, the Pharisees, and the wealthy in general (easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, than a rich person to become a good human being).

    He may have noticed who the slaveowners were - the actual owners of slaves, not the metaphorical extensions to poetically defined "slaves", but the people who bought and sold human beings on whim, as property.

    But he did not condemn slavery itself, and neither did any other Biblical figure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    In response to Lynx_Fox' invitation to bring this topic to a close:

    In view of the fact that one faction here is either incapable or refuses to look at this topic in view of the big picture and the impact of Jewish and Christian teachings on the topic of master/servant relationships, I do not see how much can be derived from further discussion.

    I suppose what disturbs me the most is the degree of villification that is served up on the Judo-Christian teaching when neither Jews nor Christians approve of or practice slavery in this day and age. Meanwhile, slavery is still practiced in Islam and what the Quran says in both condoning and encouraging slavery is so much more onerous when compared to the nearly benign teachings of the Bible. And its teaching are followed wherever Sharia Law is practiced.

    For an article on current state of slavery in Islam go to: http://carnageandculture.blogspot.com/2011/12/child-slavery-on-arabian-peninsula.html

    And for a list of Quran verses with few side comments go to: TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Does Islam Condone Slavery & Sex Slavery?

    I looked for similar articles relating to current Jewish and Christian practices of slavery and found at grand sum total of zero articles.

    I also looked for lists of Bible verses relating to masters and servants and found only articles which put some sort of biased spin on the verses which mimic the different meanings expressed here.

    Meanwhile, I did find the Wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery to be reasonably neutral in its approach and includes the historical, social and economic aspects of slavery across history.

    The article even confirms my earlier contention that the Exodus verses talking about selling daughters is a marriage arrangement: "marriage rights (Exodus 21:4, 10-11, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage)."

    What this this thread shows me is that the anti-religious cult which dwells here is focused only on disrespecting Christianity. I would hope that you read the list of Quran scriptures on slavery and realize that such in the law wherever Sharia Law is practiced. If you are not aware of these practices and that they are taking place even as you read this, I truly feel sorry for you. I find your attacks on old Judo-Christian teachings totally inane, if not insane. Nor do I consider this in any way ad hominum because to me, the substance of this thread is the thinking which led to and perpetuated it.

    You are straining gnats while swallowing camels.
    Last edited by daytonturner; March 10th, 2012 at 10:20 PM. Reason: adding dropped final sentence
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,307
    I dare say I probably know more about Islam than most people here--given I studied it part time for nearly ten years, learned some of the language, and put it to use living with Shia and Sunni Arabs for nearly a year as I trained their military. I earlier mentioned they have more severe problems than Christians because they read their religious text in it's original language. As you can imagine comparing religions, including the various schools of Islam, denominations of Christianity, Yazidi (in Northern Iraq) and Jews (I'm weak in that regard) was a constant point of interest with them often leading to some rather amazing conversations late at night sharing tea. Some of them are extremely stubborn and effected operations, such as field grade officers who refused to believe we predict the tides, weather, winds and other things they considered the province of Allah; but my experience with stubborn Christians on social and scientific subjects made it a bit easier to recognize and understand so we could figure out ways to work around their beliefs--this was also one of the more difficult things to train my team. The worst parts of both faiths stem from the same morally bankrupt bronze-aged moral codes. There isn't nearly as much difference between them as most Christians believe, despicable passages, available for use and misuse to mistreat people remain in both.

    When my child used to do something wrong, pointing to his miscreant cousin as an excuse never worked very well. Similar hallow arguments betwen Islam and Christianity are just as compelling.

    I'm not going to comment anymore here unless it's as a mod--we're at an impasse.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 10th, 2012 at 10:42 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The Christian world -- Western Civilization -- does not practice any of those things and Christians have been the main movers in changing them. What you seem to think is that these passages should be excised from the Bible because some have used them improperly. Should we also excise all those provisions of the U.S. Constitution which have been improperly used?
    A rather poor example--because we added the 13th through 15th amendments to the Constitution thereby replacing the old interpretations so slavery was stopped, the states could no longer violate the bill of rights and civil rights to vote would be preserved. What's been added to scripture after 1865 years of human rights violations to amend those who want to dig out those old provisions?
    What has been added is centuries of thought, writings, and customs opposing slavery. Christians don't believe in slavery now. People who are not Christian should get out of the business of Christian theology and only worry about how Christians actually behave. By the same token, non-Muslims should not worry about what the Koran says, but what Muslims do.

    If it was only of historic significance we'd have no debate.
    Why do you feel that it is more than historical significance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by aristarchus
    Lynx, Jesus never condemned anyone,
    He condemned the moneychangers in the Temple, the Pharisees, and the wealthy in general (easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, than a rich person to become a good human being).

    He may have noticed who the slaveowners were - the actual owners of slaves, not the metaphorical extensions to poetically defined "slaves", but the people who bought and sold human beings on whim, as property.

    But he did not condemn slavery itself, and neither did any other Biblical figure.
    To convict is not to condemn.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How can Christians believe in hell?
    By cookiejr in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: January 12th, 2012, 02:33 PM
  2. Hebrew slaves or military wing?
    By okamido in forum History
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 4th, 2011, 07:05 PM
  3. Why do christians
    By Pikkhaud in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2008, 10:00 AM
  4. christians persecuted
    By marnixR in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 7th, 2007, 02:37 AM
  5. Christians are hypocrites
    By geezer in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 31st, 2005, 10:19 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •