Slavery part of Christian heritage in the U.S.?

[Questioninggeller]

Yesterday Representative Steve King (R-IA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King) was the only member to vote against recognizing history of slave labor in the U.S. capitol. The House of Representatives voted 399-1 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJtSM0q_CCFmnY6aQKq5eRyOmrJQD999TKBO2) for the Capitol Visitors Center to have a plaque acknowledging the role of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol.

King's reason? Well, its an interesting one. He says (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/glad_he_cleared_that_up.php?ref=fpblg) it was to protest "a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol".

Someone, perhaps a history book or a six grader, should inform him that the U.S. is a secular country, founded by believers AND non-believers.

[runnah]

A sixth grader should throw a history book at his face.

When I was young I had this notion that politicians were the cream of the crop.:o

[Tricky]

It is not just part of the history of the United States, it is part of the history of the land we now call America.

One of the things that always gets mentioned in American history books is how the Pilgrims survived a very hard first few years with the aid of a helpful Native American called Tisquantum or Squanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squanto). Here's what the history books rarely tell you.

On his way back to his tribe in 1614, Tisquantum was kidnapped by another Englishman, Thomas Hunt. Hunt was one of John Smith's lieutenants. Hunt was planning to sell fish, corn, and captured slaves in Málaga, Spain. Hunt attempted to sell Tisquantum and a number of other Native Americans into slavery for £20 apiece.

Sir Ferdinando Gorges, in A Brief Relation of the Discovery and Plantation of New England (London, 1622) wrote that some local friars, however, discovered what Hunt was attempting and took the remaining Indians, Tisquantum included, in order to instruct them in the Christian faith.

It is pretty amazing that Squanto was willing to help these folks after being kidnapped. Stockholm syndrome, I guess.

[HansMustermann]

Hmm, maybe I'm missing some context there, but I really don't get what he's trying to say there. That quote doesn't even say to me that slavery is part of the christian heritage, but... that acknowledging slavery is somehow an effort to erase the traces of christian heritage. I mean, umm, wth? How? Either I'm missing some context there or right-wing rationalizations get dumber by the day.

[ServiceSoon]

Well, I would have voted no too, but for a different reason.

[Tricky]

Maybe I interpreted it wrong, or maybe I was just looking for an excuse to reveal that rather sordid and obscure bit of American history.

And maybe Questioninggellar will come back and explain exactly what he/she is asking.

[Questioninggeller]

Hmm, maybe I'm missing some context there, but I really don't get what he's trying to say there. That quote doesn't even say to me that slavery is part of the christian heritage, but... that acknowledging slavery is somehow an effort to erase the traces of christian heritage. I mean, umm, wth? How? Either I'm missing some context there or right-wing rationalizations get dumber by the day.

King's statement, as far as I can tell, has no clear connection to his vote. That is, him complaining of a "liberal" conspiracy and voting against the resolution doesn't make sense unless he thinks its just "liberals" who want to remember slavery and he's opposed to everything "liberals" want in order to protest the liberal conspiracy.

On the other hand, slavery, with various justifications such as Biblical ones, is part of the "U.S. Christian heritage." And King wants to remember "Christian heritage."

[Robster, FCD]

Apparently, some visitor center doesn't have enough christian symbology, so he is throwing a fit.

[lightfire22000]

post deleted

[Ducky]

So to follow in his example:

I refuse to vote for any resolution to recognize gooberplathworgals because horsenpheifferschmogletards want to erase pixie dust from history.

[lightfire22000]

Someone, perhaps a history book or a six grader, should inform him that the U.S. is a secular country, founded by believers AND non-believers.


There's still A christian heritage. It just isn't exclusive. It was founded by people with varying religious views. More interestingly, many of the founders that identified as Christian adhered to theologies that certainly wouldn't be considered Christian by many of today's major churches. Declaration signer Benjamin Rush was one of the biggest advocates of Christianity in public life and in government. However, his theology would probably be considered "universalist" by many of today's self-identified Christian leaders.

A country can't have a religion at all. Think about it. How can a company believe something? How can an organization espouse a point of view? Only individuals can have a religion as far as I see. So I wouldn't say it's a secular country since I associate that term with a conscious absence of religion, but I'd say it's just a country.

Christianity was indisputably used to not only justify, but to encourage slavery so I don't know why anyone would view a discussion of slavery as anti-Christian. Whether the people who used Christianity to justify slavery sincerely believed they had a religious duty to enslave people is another story.

Sorry about the double post.

[lightfire22000]

post deleted

[Foolmewunz]

He's playing to his constituency, which would be.... Lemme guess.... Conservative Christians, perhaps?

The bill was going to get passed in a landslide. This was his chance to get some press coverage back home and speak up for Christian Values and all that rot.

Politics as usual.

ETA: Oooh, wait.... Never mind... I didn't remember him, what with all the attention Iowa gets nowadays.

Steve King???? The guy who said that Joe McCarthy is an American hero????

The guy who predicted, about our current President,

"I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King

[MG1962]

It is pretty amazing that Squanto was willing to help these folks after being kidnapped. Stockholm syndrome, I guess.

At the risk of derailing this thread, I believe the answer was infinately more complex

[Meadmaker]

Maybe I interpreted it wrong, or maybe I was just looking for an excuse to reveal that rather sordid and obscure bit of American history.


Which I must say is something I, for one, appreciate. If you can't learn useless but entertaining trivia on a forum, it just isn't worth reading.


On the subject of the OP, I think Rep. King might have some 'splainin' to do.

[Ducky]

So to follow in his example:

I refuse to vote for any resolution to recognize gooberplathworgals because horsenpheifferschmogletards want to erase pixie dust from history.

What the hell? Aren't there any gooberplathworgals that are going to protest me for not voting for them because the horsenpheifferschmogletards want to erase pixie dust from history?

Apparently gooberplathworgals and horsenpheifferschmogletards alike are just sheeple.

I WILL FIGHT! MY CONSTITUENCY CAN COUNT ON ME TO FIGHT THE DAMNED HORSENPHEIFFERSCHMOGLETARDS! TO HELL WITH THE GOOBERPLATHWORGALS!

Look, someone just laugh at this please? You know how goddam hard it is to type gooberplathworgals and horsenpheifferschmogletards? Take one for the team and just reply with a lol.

[Foster Zygote]

Quick! Somebody give Ducky the Heimlich!

[autumn1971]

To be fair, the gentleman from Iowa wanted to voice a (stupid) protest, so he probably selected this bill because it was guaranteed to pass by a huge margin. Sure, he'll lose his district's black vote, but his district probably only has a black vote (howdy, Tom).

[hamelekim]

Yesterday Representative Steve King (R-IA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King) was the only member to vote against recognizing history of slave labor in the U.S. capitol. The House of Representatives voted 399-1 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJtSM0q_CCFmnY6aQKq5eRyOmrJQD999TKBO2) for the Capitol Visitors Center to have a plaque acknowledging the role of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol.

King's reason? Well, its an interesting one. He says (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/glad_he_cleared_that_up.php?ref=fpblg) it was to protest "a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol".

Someone, perhaps a history book or a six grader, should inform him that the U.S. is a secular country, founded by believers AND non-believers.

Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition.

Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't make them a Christian, just as calling yourself a Doctor doesn't make you a doctor without the education and degrees.

But yes, I thought it was rather hypocritical of him to deny slavery but he wants to acknowledge Christian heritage of the US.

[Questioninggeller]

Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition.

Christian belief includes the Old Testament, which is full of justifications/glorification of slavery.



Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't make them a Christian, just as calling yourself a Doctor doesn't make you a doctor without the education and degrees.


Formal education and its clear cut requirement, and religion are not the same thing.

If someone says the believe in the Christian religion and we have records of them saying/practicing that then there is no reason to doubt it.

What "makes" someone a Christian?

[joobz]

Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition.
Then why does Jesus use Slavery as an example for teaching morality and for describing our relationship with him.

Can you show passages in the bible where Jesus condemns slavery?

Jesus, as described in the bible, wasn't too concerned about slavery.

[MG1962]

Jesus, as described in the bible, wasn't too concerned about slavery.

Why would he be?

[joobz]

Why would he be?
If he was merely a man, he wouldn't be.
If he was god incarnate, he should have been.

[MG1962]

If he was merely a man, he wouldn't be.
If he was god incarnate, he should have been.

Why?. You do realise that slavery under the Mosaic code was different to what African Americans suffered.

[joobz]

Why?. You do realise that slavery under the Mosaic code was different to what African Americans suffered.
Yes, I do. That's a classic apologist attempt at trying to minimize the issue. Please explain why partial ownership of a person is acceptable by god's standard. Please show why this makes it "ok" for slavery to be condoned in the bible.

Let's state it another way:
If god is ok with slavery (in any of its forms), then god is immoral and not worthy of worship.


ETA:
What about the parable where jesus explains that it's ok to beat a slave for violating a rule that he was unaware of (provided that the master would punish the slave who knowingly violated a rule more severely)?

[MG1962]

Yes, I do. That's a classic apologist attempt at trying to minimize the issue. Please explain why partial ownership of a person is acceptable by god's standard. Please show why this makes it "ok" for slavery to be condoned in the bible.

How so, if you agree the modern meaning of the word is not the same as as used in the OT - why do I have to defend a contextual arguement that you agree does not exist



Let's state it another way:
If god is ok with slavery (in any of its forms), then god is immoral and not worthy of worship.

Being gay in 1895 meant something completely different to being gay in 2005 - Is it immoral to condem the original meaning of the word because of a modern evolution in meaning?


ETA:
What about the parable where jesus explains that it's ok to beat a slave for violating a rule that he was unaware of (provided that the master would punish the slave who knowingly violated a rule more severely)?

Could you point out that particular verse?

[HansMustermann]

Why?. You do realise that slavery under the Mosaic code was different to what African Americans suffered.

Oh, you mean the kind of OT slavery where according to God it was OK to beat a slave savagely, just as long as it's not to death? With the clause that if it doesn't die on the same day, then, wth, it wasn't from the beating and you're good to go?

See: Exodus 21:20-21.

Oh, or you mean that male Hebrew slaves had to be freed on the 7'th year? Well, that's fine and dandy, but foreign slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46) or female slaves (Exodus 21:7) didn't have to be freed, ever.

Oh, and Exodus 21:3-4 is just _precious_ about freeing those Hebrew slaves: "f he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." You know, you can go if you want to, but you must leave your wife and children behind in slavery.

Oops, it still wouldn't have been a better situation for those African-Americans if it were by old Hebrew law after all.

Oh, and if someone rapes a female slave who was engaged to someone else? She shall be scourged, and he gets to redeem himself by sacrificing at the temple. She shall not be killed for it because she wasn't free. (Leviticus 19:20-21) (Aww, gee, isn't that generous. You got raped, but we won't kill you for it.)

No mention of any punishment exists for raping a female slave who wasn't engaged to someone else. Were those fair game?

Actually, wait, those _were_ fair game:

- Deuteronomy 21:10-14: basically, when you go to war, you can take a woman as a slave if you lust for her, shave her head, let her mourn her family for a month (wouldn't want to be inhuman there or anything), then go rape her. (More literally, go make her your wife... whether she wants it or not.) And if you find that she's no good in bed and you don't want more of that, just let her go. You can't sell her for money any more, 'cause, you know, you "humbled" her. (Aw, gee, isn't it just precious that the punishment for the guy who killed your family and raped you, is that he can't also sell you into slavery?)

- Genesis 16:1-2, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9-10: The same thing repeated 3 times by 3 different people. So I'm guessing it must have been a common or generally accepted thing to do. Basically, "Behold, I can't seem to get pregnant so go bone the maid and leave her pregnant, and we'll call the result our child by proxy." I'm so sure that the slave maid properly appreciated the honour about to be bestowed on her.

[joobz]

How so, if you agree the modern meaning of the word is not the same as as used in the OT - why do I have to defend a contextual arguement that you agree does not exist
Because god isn't temporally bound. If you wish to claim that Jesus was simply a man of his time, than you have no argument from me. But the moment we pretend that Jesus is god incarnate, he is no longer bound by that same limitation.



Being gay in 1895 meant something completely different to being gay in 2005 - Is it immoral to condem the original meaning of the word because of a modern evolution in meaning?
That's a rather fallacious comparison. We aren't speaking of a change in word definition, we are speaking of a concept: Slavery.

If you think that the slavery of the bible isn't a big deal, then explain why.


Could you point out that particular verse?
Luke 12:47-48
" 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

[MG1962]

Oh, you mean the kind of OT slavery where according to God it was OK to beat a slave savagely, just as long as it's not to death? With the clause that if it doesn't die on the same day, then, wth, it wasn't from the beating and you're good to go?

Oh you are talking about the slavery that allows a slave to buy their freedom at any time. The slavery that was used as a punishment for debt or restitution of damage to a persons property. Or the fixed term of the slavery. Or the slavery that said once a term was complete, they had to be supplied with food grain and wine when they leave

Could you point out some historical examples of such behaviour duing the slave period of the US.

The example you suggest - is actually two days. And if a case could be presented that the slave died from the beating, it was still refered to the judges for arbitration of cause

[joobz]

Oh you are talking about the slavery that allows a slave to buy their freedom at any time. The slavery that was used as a punishment for debt or restitution of damage to a persons property. Or the fixed term of the slavery. Or the slavery that said once a term was complete, they had to be supplied with food grain and wine when they leave
...the slavery that allows a person to become a slave as a punishment for loosing a war... The slavery that makes killing a slave legal (provided the slave doesn't die within three days of the blow)... The slavery that makes a person OWN another...



Could you point out some historical examples of such behaviour duing the slave period of the US.
I don't need to. I am not merely talking about modern slavery but both forms. I find both to be immoral.

let's pretend that Jesus is ok with one and not the other... Are you ok with that? Is that an acceptable form of morality for a benevolent god?

The example you suggest - is actually two days. And if a case could be presented that the slave died from the beating, it was still refered to the judges for arbitration of cause
You're ok with this? This is the kind of slavery that you're ok with god condoning?

[MG1962]

That's a rather fallacious comparison. We aren't speaking of a change in word definition, we are speaking of a concept: Slavery.

Absoultely not - slavery in the OT was a punishment for a crime, or injustice to a person. It had defined period, get out clause, and instructions about what was acceptable and not acceptable.

Convicts brought to Australia to work as forced labor had even less rights than their Jewish counterparts, but were never considered slaves. To compare either case to slavery to the New World or even the dreadful modern day slave trading is simply without foundation.



If you think that the slavery of the bible isn't a big deal, then explain why.

I dont make judgements of societies I have no contextual relevance to



Luke 12:47-48
" 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

I am not sure I see how that passage advances your arguement. There are certain things a slave should know they cant do, regardless if they have been specifically told or not - example burning down the house, stealing money etc etc

[MG1962]

I don't need to. I am not merely talking about modern slavery but both forms. I find both to be immoral.

Then you are promoting the abolishion of all penal institutions, especially those that have a labour component to the prison term?

[MG1962]

You're ok with this? This is the kind of slavery that you're ok with god condoning?

Condoning what, that a master can still be punished if the beating is the cause of death. But not punishing the master if the slave dies of old age two days after the beating

[joobz]

Absoultely not - slavery in the OT was a punishment for a crime, or injustice to a person. not exclusively. You can have a slave as part of a battle.

It had defined period, get out clause, and instructions about what was acceptable and not acceptable.
So, you think it's ok that Jesus condones this kind of slavery? you are free to beleive so, I simply say that such a view is hardly indicative of a divine noble morality.


I dont make judgements of societies I have no contextual relevance to
That's a cop out.

If you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing, that's fine. But If you are attempting to excuse Jesus' condoning of slavery that's another thing. I've noticed you keep avoiding this issue.



I am not sure I see how that passage advances your arguement. There are certain things a slave should know they cant do, regardless if they have been specifically told or not - example burning down the house, stealing money etc etc
There's no mention on the reasonableness of the rules. Merely that if a slave breaks a rule, you can beat him (physically). That's the merciful and just will of god.

[HansMustermann]

Oh you are talking about the slavery that allows a slave to buy their freedom at any time.

Oh yes, because someone who's a slave without an income beyond the bare-subsistence-level meal he gets, is so going to just go to the ATM and buy himself free. That's such a poor excuse, I'm sure you can do better.

And technically the blacks in the USA could buy themselves free by proxy. There are a lot of blacks who appear on historical records as owning other blacks, because they basically bought them and freed them. (But most still were registered as slaves as a tax dodge.)


The slavery that was used as a punishment for debt or restitution of damage to a persons property.

Bzzt. Just plain old false. Taking slaves in war is encouraged all over the place, even (or especially) from the non-combatant women and _children_ of those neighbouring nation.

Sorry, but being a child in a nation that got attacked, does not constitute punishment for debt or damage to property. Those hadn't caused any damage to anyone in the invading army.

Or the fixed term of the slavery.

Did you even bother _reading_ those verses I supplied as reference? The fixed term was only for male Jews. Women or foreigners were to be held slaves for _life_ and inherited by your heirs.

Or the slavery that said once a term was complete, they had to be supplied with food grain and wine when they leave

Again, only if the slave was a male Jew. For anyone else, even for the woman taken and raped in that war, you didn't have to give them jack squat.

Could you point out some historical examples of such behaviour duing the slave period of the US.

Considering that they didn't apply to foreigners taken as slaves in the OT either, why? All those restrictions on slavery were only for Hebrew male citizens. Period. By comparison, in the USA if you were a citizen, you couldn't even be a slave at all. So, even in that aspect, yeah, the USA did better.

The example you suggest - is actually two days. And if a case could be presented that the slave died from the beating, it was still refered to the judges for arbitration of cause

"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."

I don't read "a day or two" as "two", but ok, two days. Does it make it less of an atrocity? If I beat someone up and he dies after two days from internal bleeding, would that absolve me of manslaughter in any civilized country? WTH?

As for the arbitration, I call plain old BS. The text doesn't say that, it says, literally, "no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property". There is no mention of arbitration or judges or anything. Stop making stuff up, basically.

[MG1962]

So, you think it's ok that Jesus condones this kind of slavery? you are free to beleive so, I simply say that such a view is hardly indicative of a divine noble morality.

Given I have seen no evidence that slavery rules of the Hebrews were based on any moral code I am not sure there is a case to argue either way


That's a cop out.


Not at all - we are all product of out times and the society we live in. Because today we consider something abhorent, does not mean that morality should be projected backwards through time. To the Romans, anal sex was considered healthy and acceptable even between same sex participants. Oral sex however could be punished in very nasty ways. Our society has almost an opposite view of the these two forms of sexual activity.

Have I the right to judge the attitudes of the Romans from my seemingly more enlightened moral position. Or simply accept they did and thought about things differently to me?


If you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing, that's fine. But If you are attempting to excuse Jesus' condoning of slavery that's another thing. I've noticed you keep avoiding this issue.

I dont see debating the nature of Christ as adding to this debate. We are debating what he said and the context of those comments. Regardless if Jesus is the son of God, or a carpenter with the gift of the gab, it still does not change what he is reported to have said or how that applies to the modern world


There's no mention on the reasonableness of the rules. Merely that if a slave breaks a rule, you can beat him (physically). That's the merciful and just will of god.

Because you are taking that passage in isolation, and not part of the rest of Hebrew writings on subjects such as murder

[MG1962]

sorry

[MG1962]

Oh yes, because someone who's a slave without an income beyond the bare-subsistence-level meal he gets, is so going to just go to the ATM and buy himself free. That's such a poor excuse, I'm sure you can do better.

Well if he could go to the ATM and get the money in the first place, he would not have been a slave - and you are asking me to do better


And technically the blacks in the USA could buy themselves free by proxy. There are a lot of blacks who appear on historical records as owning other blacks, because they basically bought them and freed them. (But most still were registered as slaves as a tax dodge.)


How is that a reasonable comparison. If the slave owner chose not to sell the slave....tough. Under Hebrew law, anyone turned up with the money to cover the freedom of the slave, the offer could not be refused


Sorry, but being a child in a nation that got attacked, does not constitute punishment for debt or damage to property. Those hadn't caused any damage to anyone in the invading army.



So war retribution has never existed?



Did you even bother _reading_ those verses I supplied as reference? The fixed term was only for male Jews. Women or foreigners were to be held slaves for _life_ and inherited by your heirs.



Incorrect - Deuteronomy 15:12

And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.



By comparison, in the USA if you were a citizen, you couldn't even be a slave at all. So, even in that aspect, yeah, the USA did better.


LOL great answer except they forgot to make the slaves living in the US at the time of Independnce citizens. It was until 1868 that even free decendents of slaves had any constitutional right


I don't read "a day or two" as "two", but ok, two days. Does it make it less of an atrocity? If I beat someone up and he dies after two days from internal bleeding, would that absolve me of manslaughter in any civilized country? WTH?


Nor was it back then as I have previously pointed out



As for the arbitration, I call plain old BS. The text doesn't say that, it says, literally, "no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property". There is no mention of arbitration or judges or anything. Stop making stuff up, basically.

Yeah I made up Deuteronomy 17:18


8"(A (http://forums.randi.org/#cen-NASB-5373A))If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to (B (http://forums.randi.org/#cen-NASB-5373B))the place which the LORD your God chooses. 9"So you shall come to (C (http://forums.randi.org/#cen-NASB-5374C))the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict in the case.

[HansMustermann]

Well if he could go to the ATM and get the money in the first place, he would not have been a slave - and you are asking me to do better

Bingo. That was sarcasm. I'm calling plain old BS on your argument that it was any better, because they could just buy themselves free.

How is that a reasonable comparison. If the slave owner chose not to sell the slave....tough. Under Hebrew law, anyone turned up with the money to cover the freedom of the slave, the offer could not be refused

Right, because that's such a great consolation for someone taken in a war where you killed his family and taken him with just the shirt on his back. I'm sure it's such a big comfort for him that theoretically if he had anyone that could buy him back for a lot of money, by Jove, he could be free.

So war retribution has never existed?

War retribution by taking women and children as slaves would be called a "war crime." Look that one up. People were tried at Nuerenberg for that one.

Incorrect - Deuteronomy 15:12

And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

Only if it was a Hebrew man. How bloody hard is that to understand when it's right in the text you quote, for Pete's sake?

You want foreigners? Catch:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

My emphasis, and, really, says it all. Which part of "for life" is confusing you?

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

I.e., not go free. If you're female, tough luck, those limits don't apply to you.

Deuteronomy 20:14: "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

Yep, taking women and children is just as acceptable as taking cattle.

[joobz]

Not at all - we are all product of out times and the society we live in.
As mere men, I agree.


I dont see debating the nature of Christ as adding to this debate. We are debating what he said and the context of those comments. Regardless if Jesus is the son of God, or a carpenter with the gift of the gab, it still does not change what he is reported to have said or how that applies to the modern world

Seriously? the nature of christ doesn't factor into this debate? It's the central aspect of this debate.

Christians claim that the greatest known morality ever came from Jesus. That's THE standard that we are talking about. If That's true, then Jesus' views of slavery are not shielded by the "product of our times" argument.

As I said in the beginning.

If christians beleive that Jesus was only a man, then I agree with you.

If christians beleive that he is the eternally perfect god made flesh, than his condoning of biblical slavery represents a problem for the faith.

[MG1962]

Seriously? the nature of christ doesn't factor into this debate? It's the central aspect of this debate.

Christians claim that the greatest known morality ever came from Jesus. That's THE standard that we are talking about. If That's true, then Jesus' views of slavery are not shielded by the "product of our times" argument.

No because as a product of their time, slavery under Moasic law is not the same thing as modern man interpretes slavery. Today if you default on a loan or are sued for damage to property you still suffer consquences of those actions, all that has changed is the method of that retribution.

[joobz]

No because as a product of their time, slavery under Moasic law is not the same thing as modern man interpretes slavery. Today if you default on a loan or are sued for damage to property you still suffer consquences of those actions, all that has changed is the method of that retribution.


So slavery is just a legal matter to god? Doesn't that make "Jesus as god" even more suspect?

[HansMustermann]

No because as a product of their time, slavery under Moasic law is not the same thing as modern man interpretes slavery. Today if you default on a loan or are sued for damage to property you still suffer consquences of those actions, all that has changed is the method of that retribution.

Dude, again, just because you pretend something doesn't exist, it doesn't make it so. We've just been at the fact that slaves were taken in war, even children and women who didn't owe jack squat to their captors.

Just because you pretend to have a short memory, and assert the same bald-faced lie again and again, doesn't make it truth. It just makes you a broken parrot.

[Meadmaker]

If he was merely a man, he wouldn't be.
If he was god incarnate, he should have been.

He should have been? To paraphrase the Book of Job, where were you when he made the heavens and Earth?

I love the Book of Job. More Christians should read it. It says, right there in black and white, that God doesn't have to be a nice guy. He's God and can do whatever he bloody well wants to. There's no "problem of evil" in the book of Job. The answer to the question of how can an all-loving God allow slavery to continue is, "Shut up and get back to the Temple."

Apparently, the Book of joobz would read somewhat differently.

[joobz]

He should have been? To paraphrase the Book of Job, where were you when he made the heavens and Earth?

I love the Book of Job. More Christians should read it. It says, right there in black and white, that God doesn't have to be a nice guy. He's God and can do whatever he bloody well wants to. There's no "problem of evil" in the book of Job. The answer to the question of how can an all-loving God allow slavery to continue is, "Shut up and get back to the Temple." You are fully correct.
And if that is really the nature of god, I refuse to worship him.

Apparently, the Book of joobz would read somewhat differently.
For starters, it would involve a lot more beer, xbox and a love for my children.;)

[HansMustermann]

I love the Book of Job. More Christians should read it. It says, right there in black and white, that God doesn't have to be a nice guy. He's God and can do whatever he bloody well wants to. There's no "problem of evil" in the book of Job. The answer to the question of how can an all-loving God allow slavery to continue is, "Shut up and get back to the Temple."

Well, at least that _is_ a logical point of view. It's not a god I would worship either, but it's realistic and more than supported by the Bible. I can respect that.

My problems are with

1) trying to twist this psychopathic entity, which doesn't have to have empathy because he's got the power, into some kind of pure love and benevolence entity.

2) arguments from pretending that whole chunks of the Bible don't exist. Like our friend MG just did after I pointed out first the book and verse numbers, and then the actual quotes.

3) basically the idea that God's morals just changed with the morals of the times. One time there's slavery and God is all for that, then it gets phased out, and God doesn't like it any more either. One time there's all sorts of genocide, and God orders one or two of his own, and then it's not cool any more, and apparently God stops liking it too. One time it's ok to beat your slaves to near death -- including for not doing what they _didn't_ _know_ you wanted, but it's ok if you don't beat them quite as hard -- then the world starts getting ideas like "rights" and then God is all for granting human inalienable rights too, all of a sudden. Etc.

Don't tell me you haven't seen that interpretation all over the place, including in this thread. You know, the "well, that was then, when everyone had slaves anyway, and this is now" kind of rationale. The kind of God that changes and adapts with the times, and somehow adopts the mores of whatever human society may be at the time.

In which case:

3.a. Why do I need a God there to explain it? Since the non-Abrahamic parts of the world got the same morals at the same development stages too.

3.b. What claim to giving morals does religion have, if it just gives whatever human society (including the heathens at the time) had for morals at the time anyway? If god is for slaves when everyone has slaves, and against slaves when that went out of fashion anyway, then that God isn't _giving_ morals at all. He's just giving a nod to whatever was already there.

3.c. Sorry, but that's not a _God_ with a _plan_. That's just a sycophant politician.

"Oh, you really want to take slaves? Great idea. By golly, I say go forth with the army and take slaves. Oh, now people take offense with their relatives being slaves, and you want to free them after a while? Excellent idea, sir. Let them go after 6 years, I say. Go forth and do it in my name. What now? People start asking to keep their foreigner slaves longer? Good thinking there. By all means, keep the foreigners for ever. I'm down with that. What, now people _don't_ want slaves any more? Yep, I can see you're an enlightened and progressive man. With my blessing, go free the slaves. I was never really for that crap myself, you know..."

That's in a nutshell the Christian God over the ages.

[kerikiwi]

Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition.

Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't make them a Christian, just as calling yourself a Doctor doesn't make you a doctor without the education and degrees.



Slavery is indeed a human condition, as is believing in a divine Jesus.
Since religions are made up by people, a person's religion is whatever that person says it is. So yes, if a person claims to be a Christian , a Christian that person is.
And if you claim to be a (different sort of) Christian, a (different sort of) Christian you are.

[Tricky]

"The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the opressors. For my part I would say, wecome the infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny and bararous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels in this age than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Bolingbroke, put together, have done!"
--Fredrick Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass)

I think Mr Douglas had a better perspective to evaluate the influence of Christianity on institutionalized slavery than any of us.

[MG1962]

Dude, again, just because you pretend something doesn't exist, it doesn't make it so. We've just been at the fact that slaves were taken in war, even children and women who didn't owe jack squat to their captors.

Just because you pretend to have a short memory, and assert the same bald-faced lie again and again, doesn't make it truth. It just makes you a broken parrot.

First I was an apologist, now I am promoting bold faced lies....make up your mind. All because I dont agree with your deductions about the Bible, or the context of its contents.

And if the information in the Bible is so damning, why is it there. There was plenty of time in the first three hundred years or so after Christ for people to fine tune the document, remove all this inconsistent stuff....why didn't they?

Simple because in the context of when it was written, what was written made sense. Feel free to overlay any sort of modern agenda you want to. It still does not change the fact the document is a product of its time. However you will be hard pressed to find any support for your arguement among either historians or anthropologists. For them context is everything. As it should be

[HansMustermann]

First I was an apologist, now I am promoting bold faced lies....make up your mind.

They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, they usually go well together.

All because I dont agree with your deductions about the Bible, or the context of its contents.

There's a difference between not agreeing with a deduction, and just acting like something spelled out there just doesn't exist because it doesn't fit your propaganda slant. It's not a deduction, it's _spelled_ _out_.

You had an excuse before the chapter and verse numbers were pointed out. I don't expect you to know the whole book by heart, so that's ok. You had _some_ half an excuse before the actual text was quoted. Ok, I won't draw and quarter anyone for being too lazy to read the references supplied from the very text he's arguing about. You know, actually opening the book or looking it up online, might be too much effort ;)

But after it's been copied and pasted what it says, and it's basically, "go take slaves in war, even their women and children", coming back pretending yet again that, oh, it was just debtors and criminals... now that makes it a plain old _lie_ at that point.

And if the information in the Bible is so damning, why is it there. There was plenty of time in the first three hundred years or so after Christ for people to fine tune the document, remove all this inconsistent stuff....why didn't they?

Now this is plain old illogical. So because they didn't get removed... they're good? Help me there a bit, because I'm drawing blanks as to what kind of logic would support that.

Plus, for the first 3 hundred years after Christ the Romans still used slavery extensively, so, umm... what reason would they have to remove the endorsement at Nicaea?

Simple because in the context of when it was written, what was written made sense. Feel free to overlay any sort of modern agenda you want to. It still does not change the fact the document is a product of its time. However you will be hard pressed to find any support for your arguement among either historians or anthropologists. For them context is everything. As it should be

Except, as I was saying before, then that's not a God with a plan. Anthropology needs cultural concept because humans are born and raised in a particular cultural context. A "God" isn't. An eternal being that's been there for ever, has no excuse or reason to have the same morals and culture as if he got born 20 years ago and raised in that culture.

[joobz]

Simple because in the context of when it was written, what was written made sense. Feel free to overlay any sort of modern agenda you want to. It still does not change the fact the document is a product of its time. However you will be hard pressed to find any support for your arguement among either historians or anthropologists. For them context is everything. As it should be
Then why don't christians competely abandon the text as being a product of it's time and simply claim it as 2000 year old myth?

If we have people in our modern era attempting to use the bible as a guide for morality, then I am fully justified in judging the moral code presented by modern concepts of morality.