After the Flood: The Church, Slavery and Reconciliation

[boatsnguitars]

After the Flood: The Church, Slavery and Reconciliation
https://www.premierchristianity.com/rev ... 28.article

One of my Bible Study members brought this to our attention. We plan on watching it together and see if we feel it was fair, or continues a whitewash of history.

Debate:
Can Christianity be used legitimately to defend slavery?
How could the Bible have been misinterpreted so easily and pervasively?
Should we own people, since the Bible doesn't call it a sin, so it may just be a Liberal, Progressive, Snowflake ideal that is anti-Biblical?
How much would you be worth as a slave, on the open market?
Would you be a slave, or would you run away, knowing you are breaking the law, or worse, causing your owner economic distress?
What would you teach your children if they were born into slavery, and you thought it was great? How would you defend slavery if you were a slave?
What Book would you cite the most in defending either you being a slave, or you owning slaves?

[boatsnguitars]

I can't wait to see the response - if any. I've seen them before. Quite apart from the 'indentured servitude' evasion, which of course can be circumvented by giving him a wife and kids and you keep those and if he doesn't want to lose them - he becomes your slave for life, Hebrew or not. With non Hebrews no problems. Chattel slavery endorsed by the Bible. The Abolitionists might have been Christians and waffled about the Human soul but they were using rationalist views of freedom and pretending it was the 'Christian' thing to do.

I've seen the 'God had to go along with the customs of the time' excuse and a pitiful one it is, too. God stomped hard and heavy with Commandments about things he didn't like. No graven images. The customs of the time would have graven images of Yahweh just like they has in Old Canaan before the Bronze age collapse when God had a wife, too. But if he can say No statues, he can say No slavery, too. And should, unless He was a human invented deity that was made in their - all images. Which is what I suggest explains the facts perfectly.

There's the 'Jesus made everything new' get - out, but of course he didn't prohibit slavery but seemed ok with it. Even though Paul knows that slaves really want to be free. In fact Jesus' (and Paul's,uncannily) view seems exactly in line with the general views on slavery at the time.

There's also the 'you don't understand' response which isn't even an excuse, as is Silence, but I think our pal 1213 can do a lot better than that

Oh.... almost forgot - there's the 'oh, not that old argument again' dismissal. Which I'm sure our pal is too good to use, because he (she or Insert pronoun here____) is smart enough to know hat we Goddless get all the old debunked apologetics time after time, and even then, needn't be New, needs to be true.

And, of course, nowadays, it's popular for most (if not all Christians) to argue againstr slavery, but we must insist that this wasn't always the case. The movie was produced - to their credit - by Christians, for Christians and about Christians. It must be strongly pointed out that Chrisitanity was the predominate religion in the West, most people were Christian, and - if we are to believe them - most countries were established Christian countries. And for thousands of years. Over 100 or more generations, the Isrealites/Jews/Christians/Muslims practiced slavery with no thought of it being wrong. They even defended it.

Only in the last 5-6 generations did Christians suddenly develop a conscience.

So, to me, it's not just the silence on the matter in the Bible, it's the continued claim from Christians (et al) that they had a book that was the final word on morality, but it still took them 100's of generations to change.

One might say that's no better than chance, especially when we realize many of the anti-slavery laws occurred after there was such a large population of slaves that suddenly threatened the slave holders. Suddenly, very suddenly, slavers found that they wanted to be sweet to slaves - before they rebelled and killed their whole family. That's not morality - that's fear of justice.

But, that's Christianity, isn't it?

[POI]

Debate:

How could the Bible have been misinterpreted so easily and pervasively?

Any book or wrting can be misinterpreted; all that is needed is to take portions put of context, attach inaccurate meanings to words and / or misrepresent the explicit or implicit intent of the author. This is less a reflection of the quality if the writing so much as the limitation of language.

Second request from post #5.

What IS the correct interpretation? Meaning, does the Bible sanction or allow for chattel slavery?

[TRANSPONDER]

Debate:

How could the Bible have been misinterpreted so easily and pervasively?

Any book or wrting can be misinterpreted; all that is needed is to take portions put of context, attach inaccurate meanings to words and / or misrepresent the explicit or implicit intent of the author. This is less a reflection of the quality if the writing so much as the limitation of language.

Second request from post #5.

What IS the correct interpretation? Meaning, does the Bible sanction or allow for chattel slavery?

And, as I think I may have asked, if it's possible to misread it so badly that what reads like tolerance of slavery somehow isn't, how can we rely on anything the book seems to say?

[POI]

Debate:

How could the Bible have been misinterpreted so easily and pervasively?

Any book or wrting can be misinterpreted; all that is needed is to take portions put of context, attach inaccurate meanings to words and / or misrepresent the explicit or implicit intent of the author. This is less a reflection of the quality if the writing so much as the limitation of language.

Second request from post #5.

What IS the correct interpretation? Meaning, does the Bible sanction or allow for chattel slavery?

And, as I think I may have asked, if it's possible to misread it so badly that what reads like tolerance of slavery somehow isn't, how can we rely on anything the book seems to say?

Great question. But, as usual, "JW" will likely not reply. However, I will continue to ask, and maybe some other theist(s) will eventually be brave enough to take a stab at it...

[Miles]

Debate:

How could the Bible have been misinterpreted so easily and pervasively?

Any book or writing can be misinterpreted; all that is needed is to take portions put of context, attach inaccurate meanings to words and / or misrepresent the explicit or implicit intent of the author. This is less a reflection of the quality if the writing so much as the limitation of language.

Or, looking at various translations, be contradictory and misleading between themselves. For instance, What did god tell Noah to use to build the Ark? Well, ya got your choice. From Genesis 6:14:

"wood"
CEB
"so make a wooden ark. Make the ark with nesting places and cover it inside and out with tar."

"good lumber"
CEV
"Get some good lumber and build a boat. Put rooms in it and cover it with tar inside and out."

"gopherwood"
KJ21
"Make thee an ark of gopherwood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt cover it within and without with pitch."

"cypress wood"
ERV
"Use cypress wood and build a boat for yourself. Make rooms in the boat and cover it with tar inside and out."

"pine trees"
GNV
" Make thee an Ark of pine trees: thou shalt make cabins in the Ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."

"resinous wood"
TLB
"Make a boat from resinous wood, sealing it with tar; and construct decks and stalls throughout the ship."

"teakwood"
MSG
“Build yourself a ship from teakwood. Make rooms in it. Coat it with pitch inside and out."

And these are not necessarily the same thing.

Gopherwood: Torreya taxifolia
Cypress: Taxodium distichum
Pine: Pinus spp
Teak: Tectona grandis

Or take the conflicting versions of Jesus’ last words before dying, which I think would be pretty darn important to get right.

Mark 15:34-37 - Jesus says: Eloi, Eloi,* lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: Eli, Eli,** lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."

John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”

* "eloi": "exalted one'."
** "eli": “high” or “elevated.”


Or take what happened when Jesus died. Matthew 27:51-54 tells us (KJV):

51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. 52 The graves opened, and many of God’s people who had died were raised from death. 53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death, they went into the holy city, and many people saw them.
54 The army officer and the soldiers guarding Jesus saw this earthquake and everything that happened. They were very afraid and said, “He really was the Son of God!”

And what do Mark, Luke, and John say about this horrific event? Other then the mention in Mark about how the Temple was torn into two pieces, Nada. Nothing. Not a word. It's as if Matthew was at a whole other event hundreds of miles away.

So, who you gonna trust? Ghost Busters?

.

[1213]

....
Can Christianity be used legitimately to defend slavery?
...

Basic Biblical teaching is, do other what you want to be done to you. If I would keep slaves, it would mean I want to be kept as a slave. I don't want to be kept as a slave, that is why I don't keep slaves and that is also why I am against mandatory taxes, because they are essentially modern slavery.

....Therefore, the 'golden rule' is outweighed by the fact that Jesus makes special addendums for slavery Slavery is a special circumstance.

I don't say people can't have slaves. I only say, don't do it, if you don't want that to be done to you.

[1213]

That's the Biblical reversal of the burden of proof - not do to others what they want done, but do to others what you would want. It's an evangelist charter to interfere with others and force on them the views that you would want forced on you if you were a believer...

No one wants anything to be done to them against their will. That is why, if person goes by the rule, he asks first for example, is it ok to tell something.

But the point in the op is, that the 'don't do to others'admonition doesn't appear until the NT. What about before then? When there was slavery going on by and often Of Hebrews. Wouldn't that be the time to say in the Rules if not the Commandments 'do not own other persons as property'? Not leave it to some admonition that would be spoken until near 1000 years later.. But not a whisper, instead instructions about how much you can whup a slave without being questioned on it.

Sorry, I thought it was about Christians.

If people would go strictly by all the rules in OT, I don't see any problem in that. The problem is that people seem to cherry pick only lines that fits to their desires and ignore the rest.

[POI]

....
Can Christianity be used legitimately to defend slavery?
...

Basic Biblical teaching is, do other what you want to be done to you. If I would keep slaves, it would mean I want to be kept as a slave. I don't want to be kept as a slave, that is why I don't keep slaves and that is also why I am against mandatory taxes, because they are essentially modern slavery.

....Therefore, the 'golden rule' is outweighed by the fact that Jesus makes special addendums for slavery Slavery is a special circumstance.

I don't say people can't have slaves. I only say, don't do it, if you don't want that to be done to you.

Well, then you disagree with Jesus-God. Jesus-God made special rules for certain slaves. They are to be property for life. Jesus had a chance to change things, by either:

A) Not saying anything about slavery, which many would then take it as is "no longer law".
B) Mention his abolition of such practices.

But instead, he merely added additional addendums. Which means he's A-okay with chattel slavery, as instructed in Leviticus 25 and Exodus 21.

[POI]

No one wants anything to be done to them against their will. That is why, if person goes by the rule, he asks first for example, is it ok to tell something.

You would be right IF Jesus did not approve of slavery practices in the NT. But he did. Hence, the specifics outweigh the general statement. Slavery has special rules.

If people would go strictly by all the rules in OT, I don't see any problem in that. The problem is that people seem to cherry pick only lines that fits to their desires and ignore the rest.

Then you should not have a problem with Christians owning chattel slaves. And yes, I have not seen a Christian yet, which does not appear to cherry pick, to taste. Us unbelievers merely point out the stuff you guys gloss over

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

Yes. Which is why I don't do translation - shopping and prefer undeniables. Like you can point to various translations of the wood that Noah supposedly used, but it was Wood. You cannot get steel framing and carbon fibre out of it. And thus the Ark will on evidence fail because the massive wooden schooner Wyoming (which i believe steel - braced which the Ark could hardly have been) was not really seaworthy, and it wasn't crammed to the futtocks with critters.

The point being that I can use the KJV to make points and the Bible apologists cannot hide under a cloak of misinterpretation and like Jesus, slip out of the Temple (1). The argument that in Matthew and Mark both of the 'robbers' crucified with Jesus, abuse him. Hang on... I'll check. Yep both of them mouthslam Jesus. But Luke has one of them repent, slobber over Jesus and is promised paradise together with Jesus on that day (which is another problem because Jesus isn't supposed to rise until the third day not the first). So rising to paradise has to be something other than rising to the Father ...which is the only response i have ever seen attempted to that problem. That apart from how an eyewitness could fail to note that remarkable event of the penitent thief and not only leave it out but claim that both 'robbers' reviled Jesus. This is the strongest evidence that Luke Invented. And together with the rejection at Nazareth, the netful of fish at the calling of disciples, and the alteration of the angelic message at the tomb, oh yes, and the involvement of Herod (Antipas) at the trial, not to mention the most memorable parables which none of the others can remember, and you know for sure that Luke is asn inventor of Gospel tales.

(1) It may not be the topic, but I wonder. Sometimes Luke and John uncannily share the same material but treated differently (I have a tentative 'floating stories' hypothesis which might explain why there is a netful of fish at the calling of disciples in Luke, but after the resurrection in John, why there is no walking on water in Luke (not many people seem to know that ) and of course why the woman taken in adultery has sometimes appeared in John and sometimes in Luke.

Point is....take John 8.59 where they threaten to stone Jesus and he gets away from the threat and Luke 4 .28 where he does the same thing. It's no more similar than that, but I just wonder whether there was a tale of a bunch of Jews wanting to stone Jesus and he got away from them. Luke certainly added that element to his Rejection at Nazareth and maybe did not just invent it but got the idea from the claim that the Jews tried to kill Jesus but he got away from them. John 8 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Luke 4.29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. 30 But he passing through the midst of them, went his way,

Possible connection? It isn't the only example of this.