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?

[POI]

Can Christianity be used legitimately to defend slavery?

I'd say the Bible does not condemn slavery. If the Bible never mentioned slavery at all, the apologist could certainly argue that the Bible condemns such practices. However, the apologist is, instead, left with the major task of dealing with what it says about slavery.

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

By who? The ones who state the Bible condones and/or endorses slavery practices? Or, the apologists who claim that it does not?

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?

This is the apologist's bread and butter. Meaning, they will argue for two types of 'slavery'. (i.e.) chattel slavery <vs> indentured servitude. (i.e.) "The Bible has always been against the former, and allowed or may still allow the later."

Some other apologists will argue that under the 'new' covenant, we are no longer to own others. But this fails because the specifics outweigh the generals. Meaning, in the NT, verses instruct what a slave is supposed to do, which means it must still be okay. Versus, when the apologist will mention that we are now under the "golden rule". However, the specifics over-ride the generals (i.e.):

"specific NT slavery verses" > "general golden rule"

How much would you be worth as a slave, on the open market?

According to the Bible? I might simply figure the current exchange rate, versus the days of the Bible?

Would you be a slave, or would you run away, knowing you are breaking the law, or worse, causing your owner economic distress?

Like most Christians, I would rationize why I could not be a slave. And anyone who wanted me as their slave is breaking god's law.

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?

Before or after Jesus' time?

What Book would you cite the most in defending either you being a slave, or you owning slaves?

The Bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.








JW


RELATED POSTS

Why is the bible written in a way that is open to interpretation?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 82#p844682

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

[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 internt of the author. This is less a reflection of the quality if the writing so much as the limitation of language itself.



JW

Yes. vWhich is exactly what Bible apologists do when they try to argue that the Bible does not tolerate or even endorses slavery.

I won't go into the explanation yet again but I will post more entertaining video yet again.



And that even after the Flood, they were no better than before and so hard - hearted that God had to go along with it when he had already given instructions and rules to say do or (mostly) do not do this but slavery... nahhh we'll let that go until centuries of misery and a bloody civil war later He decides..."ah...let 'em get rid of slavery - I was was always against 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 internt of the author. This is less a reflection of the quality if the writing so much as the limitation of language itself.



JW

Agreed. So what IS the correct interpretation? Does the Bible sanction or allow for chattel slavery? Which means, it is not considered a sin? Yes or no. If not, why not? And so we are clear, I'm speaking about the following definition:

Chattel slavery is the most common form of slavery known to Americans. This system, which allowed people — considered legal property — to be bought, sold and owned forever. -- google.com

[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.

[TRANSPONDER]

....
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.

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. and no mandatory taxes? Ok, no mandatory services.

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.

[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.

I already addressed this type of response in post #2. (i.e.)

the specifics outweigh the generals. Meaning, in the NT, verses instruct what a slave is supposed to do, which means it must still be okay. Versus, when the apologist will mention that we are now under the "golden rule". However, the specifics over-ride the generals (i.e.):

"specific NT slavery verses" > "general golden rule"

****************************************

In this case, Jesus-God is still okay with slavery. And the specifics outweigh the generals. Meaning, in the "OT", Exodus 21 & Leviticus 25 state how if you are born into slavery, you are the master's property for life, (with no exceptions) -- excluding the 50 year Jubilee of course When Jesus comes along, he has a chance to update the laws about slavery. Or better yet, just rebuke slavery entirely. Instead of simply condemning prior practices, he merely adds further addendums, in favor of slavery. Hence, if you are born into slavery, you are the master's property for life. Therefore, the 'golden rule' is outweighed by the fact that Jesus makes special addendums for slavery Slavery is a special circumstance.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

So, Harriet Beecher Stowe can communicate the idea that slavery is wrong better than God? Strange. How is this possible? Because there is no mystery that Uncle Tom's Cabin is anti-slavery and expressly argues against it. There are many other books that are very clear - unambiguous. I guess God just doesn't have the ability to express Himself well, which is weird since He's supposed to be omnipotent....

[TRANSPONDER]

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.