Religion
Related: About this forumWhy Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/why-christians-supported-slavery.htmlThere has been some talk here about Christians who led during the civil rights movement. We're all aware of some of them, like Dr. King. But there's a good reason for their leadership. They were standing against attitudes of many other Christians who had supported slavery, using Biblical references. We all understand the fight against slavery and, by extension, for equal rights for all people. But, that was not the case during much of the 19th century and earlier. Many defenses for slavery were made from the pulpit. Here's an article from Christianity Today that lays out the facts.
Key reasons advanced by southern church leaders
Many southern Christians felt that slavery, in one Baptist ministers words, stands as an institution of God. Here are some common arguments made by Christians at the time:
Biblical Reasons
Abraham, the father of faith, and all the patriarchs held slaves without Gods disapproval (Gen. 21: 910).
Canaan, Hams son, was made a slave to his brothers (Gen. 9:2427).
The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing Gods implicit acceptance of it (Ex. 20:10, 17).
Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.
There's more at the link. Christianity has supported many things, some of them as evil as it gets. Christianity has always been a complex religion, and not all Christians believe the same nor act for the common good. We should never forget that when discussing the role of religion in society.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)janterry
(4,429 posts)The earliest slaves were written into the Code of Hammurabi (18th century BC).
From my perspective, a better question is - why some christians continued to rationalize the institution well into the 19th Century.
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm not discussing when, but the fact that Christianity has justified slavery in the past. Christianity has a 2000 year history. For most of that history, it did not fight against slavery, but justified it using the Bible. Christianity is proud of its long history. Sometimes...
Igel
(35,191 posts)One's codified with regulations; the other, not so much.
There are many varieties of slavery. Some forms were basically terms of indenture. You sell yourself (and possibly your family) for X purpose for Y years. At the end, you're free; this, in a society where land was held by a family and could only be sold for so many years before reverting to its former owner. Presumably such contracts would end at the time the land reverted.
Another kind was the capture of enemies' families. They had harsher terms. Not codified.
Chattel slavery in the antebellum South was more like war captives. After that, they had to struggle to find some reason that allowed the continuation of slavery, and many settled on the "mark of Cain" or "curse of Ham."
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)One can certainly speculate as to whether there would have even been a war without it.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)The Northern Abolitionists were deeply religious. Quakers specifically believed in resisting slavery, through non violent means
The opposite of that coin, John Brown believed he was on a mission from God in fact. And that only by bloodshed could the nation pay for it's sin.
Why oh why do man's self created control systems continue to manipulate and do acts of varying cruelty as well as kindness.
Atheism is also proud of it's open mindedness and reason...sometimes.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)he would have, ya know, just maybe mentioned that hey, owning other people is wrong.
Instead, he gave guidelines on how slaveowners should beat their slaves.
So, yeah.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Of course, the words recorded as coming from Jesus were not written by anyone who ever heard him speak. So, we have no certain knowledge as to what was actually said. We have a game of "Telephone," even if we assume that such a person ever spoke any words at all.
Christianity, and most other religions, I assume, are variable in their adherence. One can simply ignore what is inconvenient in doctrine to suit one's preferences. That appears to be the rule. If I own slaves, I can find support for that. If I do not like slavery, I can find support for that, as well. Either way, I must ignore the doctrines I do not like.
Christianity, the religion with which I'm most familiar, is very flexible in its doctrine. There's so much slop in it that one can pretty much do as one likes and find scriptural justification. Since a popular doctrine is "Judge not, lest ye be judged," it's easy enough for people to ignore those who follow paths that seem wrong. It wouldn't be "Christian" to criticize other Christians.
Slavery is just one thing. There are many, many others. Divorce and adultery are a couple of them. Both are proscribed, but both are ignored by most Christians. It's easy. You just don't judge others. It's so simple. That singular doctrine lets you ignore what your co-religionists do, it seems. Very convenient, I think.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)to be accurately delivered third- or fourth- or even nineteenth-hand. Especially when our understanding and following it is so important for our eternal souls.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Isn't that the rub, really?
Given omnipotence, you'd think a different way could be found to send that message, eh? Given omnipresence, why not just wake everyone up in the morning by saying the rules? Given omniscience, you'd think any deity would understand the futility of the entire venture and head for a nice sunny beach for eternity.
Oh, well...
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)No deity, no message. It's all an human invention, if you ask me.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)...in Egypt during "the first century". I don't know how that worked. Maybe there was a reverse harmonizing process after the Romans took over everything in the Church. We could start a thread at DU and get to the bottom of this in an authoritative manner! ::dry::
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,276 posts)for what its adherents wanted to do in the first place. I think it's that simple.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)the dominant religion in the United States. I believe that humans invented religion, so it's only natural that religion reflects the values of the societies that create it. When societies change, they simply ignore what was once standard in their religions and forget that out of convenience, it seems.
Today, most Christians would not like to recognize Christianity's role in slavery in this country. When someone brings it up, there's all sorts of hand-waving and reference to "cultural norms" and the like. The fact is, though, that Christianity and its scriptures were once used to justify the enslavement of human beings. That cannot be denied.
A similar case can be demonstrated with regard to misogyny and inequality of the sexes. Right now, that sort of thing is not in vogue, but religious misogyny was a fact through most of the history of Christianity. Perhaps today's society is just an aberration in that history. Perhaps the future will bring another round of misogyny and slavery, justified again by scriptural doctrine. As recently as the 1910s, women were not allowed to vote in the USA. It has been less than 100 years that the right has existed. And getting even that right meant fighting Christianity here. Preachers preached against women's suffrage from their pulpits and quoted the Bible in doing so.
Christianity has not changed. Its scriptures have not changed. Society has changed. Today, those things in scripture are ignored. Tomorrow, they may not be ignored.
Religion reflects society. It always has. It was created by societies.
hlthe2b
(101,714 posts)than any other religion. What has always amazed me is why groups that ACTUALLY take the tenets of Christ as their guiding philosophy, allow others that clearly DON'T, claim to be "Christian" faiths.
But, this agnostic has other "battles" to fight...
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)There is no single set of doctrines that applies to all Christians. It's all flexible and can meet any sort of philosophical or social viewpoint. It can lead to the Crusades, when Muslims were killed on sight. It can lead to antisemitism and genocide. It can lead to torture and witch-burning. Of course, it can also lead to the spreading of peace and equality. It can be any of those things. It has been all of those things.
That's why merely identifying as a Christian really means nothing when viewed from outside of that religion. There is no typical Christian. There is nothing I can know about a person based on that label.
So, that raised the question of what Christianity really means. One person's understanding of it is not really the same as any other person's. I cannot know what it means to be a Christian, because that religion encompasses the entire range of human behaviors, both beneficial and harmful.
For me, the label is meaningless when it comes to understanding who a person truly is. I pay no attention to religious labels, for that reason. Instead, I look at people's behavior. That tells me who they are. Until I can observe that, I cannot know anything, really, about any person. Labels are useless.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)were Christian.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Which were "true" Christians? Christianity is a flexible sort of religion. It's followers can justify almost any behaviors and still smugly insist that they are Christians and goodly people. So it has been. So it remains.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)are those who understand the divinity of Christ and believe in the resurrection.
There is no requirement beyond that to be "true Christians."
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)That's exactly what I'm saying. So, of what use is the label?
MichMary
(1,714 posts)Christians, being human, do all kinds of shit.
The "label" is kind of an in-group thing. It means something very different to those who consider themselves Christian than it does to those who like to think they know how Christians are supposed to act.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I know how I think people should act. It has to do with treating everyone as one would like to be treated. That principle of reciprocity is common to all religions and cultures, really. It's simple. Who would like to be a slave? That is the only answer I need, when it comes to slavery.
I don't know how Christians are supposed to act. I've seen so much variation among them that it's completely unclear to me. So, I don't judge Christians based on their supposed doctrines. Instead, I judge them based on the principle of reciprocity. That works for me.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)and I answered according to my experience.
What I learned as a child in a pretty fundamental church (and home) is that "works" do not a Christian make. How you live, how you treat people, is supposed to show what is within. To reflect God's love in your life. Needless to say, it doesn't always.
Certain things are open to interpretation. Never do business with a "good" Christian, because he will screw you six ways to Sunday, then pat himself on the back for being a "good steward of God's gifts.
Growing up, there was a list of restrictions as long as my arm about expectations for my behavior as a Christian girl. Smoking, drinking, gambling, movies, dancing, rock music, etc. Boys were judged based on the length of their hair.
I recently found out that my mother told my husband that he wasn't a Christian because he was Catholic.
Still, the whole "how can a Christian ever--" is nonsensical. You can't judge what a person believes based on how he acts.
(And, no, I never met a Christian who was a fan of slavery.)
Mariana
(14,849 posts)MichMary
(1,714 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)can find more than one scripture to back that up.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)someone wants to take, on just about any issue.
I did look it up, as you recommended, at jw.org. Jesus didn't specifically teach against voting or running for office, because obviously, that kind of thing wasn't done then, at least not by the people he was talking to at the time. The JW's are basing it on rather vague statements such as "My kingdom is not of this world," and "They (his disciples) are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." I have to say it was a pretty good idea by the leaders of the church to prohibit political involvement altogether, as it completely prevents division among the membership over politics.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)If there were any clarity at all about what are "very basics of what it is to follow Jesus", we wouldn't have thousands of denominations of Christianity and probably millions of independent practitioners, all of them convinced they've interpreted Jesus's words correctly and everyone else is doing it wrong. Very few Christians who read the gospels come to the same conclusions the JW's have.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." Antebellum planters LOVED quoting Paul there.
New International Version (NIV)
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Slaves were property, not human beings. They did not matter. And isn't that interesting?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)at least about Jesus.
What I care about is the so called christians who today support slavery, racism, etc.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It's not a matter of what I believe, but what others believe.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Or is this something you simply made up?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)share a common trait which I cant mention.
ollie10
(2,091 posts).....christians today support the legalization of slavery? I understand that if you go to a kkk site or other white supremacist nut job site you could find such....I am talking about regular every day Christians, like the ones who go to church instead of klan meetings.....please include links
I will provide a link to the Catholic Church's current position on slavery:
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994 sets out the official position:
The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother .... both in the flesh and in the Lord."[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery
Geez, that was more than two decades ago and some still haven't heard!!!!
I am confident that the various other Christian churches have similar official positions condemning slavery.
But here on the internet, people actually believe the Christian church supports slavery!! Imagine that....preposterous!
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Too many sources to provide, would take all day.
And yes, TODAY many rightwing, racist American christians would be fine with enslaving brown people again, this is self evident.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2018, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)
virtually all Christian churches have specifically condemned slavery.
Ergo, if a Christian supports slavery this is against the rulings and wishes of their church.
Sorta like lots of people break commandments all the time....they cheat on their wives, steal, kill....but that doesn't mean the church supports these actions!
I don't deny that there are lots of racists out there. But to blame some kooks' views that support slavery on the church? That is a a stretch.....
By the way...nice dodge on idea of documenting .....what you seem to be saying is there are a lot of documentations but you can't produce even one.....too little time....but you have the time to make unsupported claims about Christianity, don't you?
Mariana
(14,849 posts)Yes. Virtually all Christian churches specifically condemn slavery today. It wasn't always so. If they changed the rules about slavery once, what's to stop them from changing the rules about slavery again?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)No comment
Mariana
(14,849 posts)It's a valid question, your personal issues notwithstanding.
To repeat it: Virtually all Christian churches specifically condemn slavery today. It wasn't always so. If they changed the rules about slavery once, what's to stop them from changing the rules about slavery again?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)no comment.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)I will continue to post responses to your posts as I wish, according to the rules of this site and of this group. You may be certain that your personal issues will have no effect upon that.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)And then you did it again. Looks to me like she made a point you couldn't answer, so you punted.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I think that is pretty clear .....in my language, English, no means no
and if she continues to stalk me, my response will be the same. no comment. I am not going to respond in any other way to someone who has repeatedly disrespected me in the past.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)They are your personal issues. They are not binding on me in any way.
Virtually all Christian churches specifically condemn slavery today. It wasn't always so. If they changed the rules about slavery once, what's to stop them from changing the rules about slavery again?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)Or you could, you know, answer the question, since you think it's important that virtually all Christian churches specifically condemn slavery today. It wasn't always so. If they changed the rules about slavery once, what's to stop them from changing the rules about slavery again?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)many of them continue to enshrine misogyny into their doctrines. There's not much sign that they'll be changing those rules any time soon. In the meantime, millions of Christians are being taught, today, that women are not to contradict a man, and that if a woman does so, she is "disrespecting" him.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)does not consist of answering posts in a discussion forum.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" - God
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)"So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander." - Peter the Apostle
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God."
So what is it, exactly, that prevents Christian churches from changing their minds about slavery?
This seems to be a variation of Jesus's idea that those who are persecuted should rejoice and be glad. Christians, whether they are slaves or free, are to consider themselves especially blessed when it happens to them.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)she is not to go free as the male slaves do."
Those were the days, eh?
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)don't reply. Repeatedly posting "No comment" is a comment, and not a polite one at all.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)So to speak.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)The answer is nothing. There is nothing to prevent Christian churches from changing their rules to approve of chattel slavery, to assert that the practice of slavery is God's will, and to insist that opposition to the practice is evil. Nothing at all.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Sadly, including our own party. They supported it once, as you have repeatedly pointed out in your replies to Ollie, that is enough reason to think they may do it again, correct?
Or is it unthinkable that our Party would ever revisit this horrific piece of it's history?
I no more blame the Democratic Party, or it's members, of today for that support than I do any modern Christian 100+ years removed from such abomination, and think they would move to re-establish it.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And not to erase his religious side, the claims made by the religious who claim him erase his other aspects.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)That's about all most people know about the man. And a yeoman's job he did with that principle, too. I praise him strongly for his work in that area. I don't dwell on his other failings.
NeoGreen
(4,030 posts)...the same fundamental reason so many praise Prosperity Theology in this day and age, they have faith they are right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I mean, imagine you're God. You put on your meat suit and head down to Earth because the hu-mans really need to get their shit together. You then spend more time talking about the evils of sexual fantasy than you do about fucking goddamned slavery.
Worst. God. Ever.
NeoGreen
(4,030 posts)...he did have a bad weekend...once...so there is that...
Ilsa
(61,675 posts)Children are bound to a master until a certain birthday. Running away prematurely, if you get caught, could add 7 times the number of days missed.
The early settlers had different levels of bondage.
Docreed2003
(16,817 posts)I remember learning about the split in American Baptists in college and flipping through a large book written by "Southern Baptists" written just before the Civil War which laid out their justifications for slavery and their split from the broader church/denomination. That racism continues to fester even today within a large part of the SBC.
As to why so many Christians supported slavery, I think, as another poster pointed out, financial interests and the desire to preserve their personal benefits led to much of the support, not just in the south but in northern states as well. The Bible can be used to support damn near anything, as you well know, if you can convince the masses of your interpretation of those texts. I can't wait till the day I've lost enough hair that when a group of kids makes fun of my bald spot I can call on God to send a bear from the woods to maul them!!! (Kidding of course).
LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)I heard that they're trying to get black congregations to join them. The SBC has to grow somehow, and I think they've been losing members for a while now. I was raised Southern Baptist, and I know a lot of people who have left the church and have either switched denominations or just don't get involved in religion anymore. The Southern Baptists have an inordinate number of assholes in their membership, and a lot of people are fed up with them.
elleng
(130,127 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)And, you know what? I can't remember a single sermon in favor of slavery every being preached. Neither do I remember a single church member telling me he or she thought we should have slavery.
I know, slavery was supported by the church.....but that was a long time ago.
Well, so was abolitionism.....some of the abolitionist pioneers were motivated by.....yes....religion.
"The fight to end slavery is usually associated with mid-19th century figures such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, but the first stirrings of the abolitionist movement began more than a century earlier among a group of former slaves, religious activists and political leaders. Below, meet six early pioneers of the antislavery cause, including an eccentric Quaker and a former slave trader turned abolitionist."
https://www.history.com/news/history-lists/6-early-abolitionists
Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from 'un-institutional' Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism
It is also true that slavery was part of the Roman Empire, long before Jesus was around. So to blame it on Jesus is a stretch. Maybe there are reasons society has had slavery historically besides blaming it all on religion? Retired history teacher here, couldn't resist.
Today, virtually all Christian leaders condemn slavery as contradictory to God's will. Last I heard, we live in this day, not centuries ago.
OK....we can return now to bashing religion as the cause of slavery......my apologies in advance for having an heretical (on this board) view
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Edited to add: perhaps you should petition to start your own group.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Put me on ignore, and you won't see my posts. I will post as I please. What you're doing is simply rude.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2018, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Reading the many posts about the simplistic beliefs of theists, and the childish behaviors of theists, there are many descriptive terms that come to mind.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)Oh, come on. Surely all of them aren't like that.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)not yours
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)are still very racist and were huge advocates of slavery.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)even black southern baptists?
yu don't say.....
heaven05
(18,124 posts)of the SB religion. When I went, black people were encouraged to sit among each other. They did. This was the 80's. I had a white girlfriend and we sat in any section we pleased. One night after the Wednesday night service preacher asked us into his office. He looked at both of us and then said a lot of the white parishoners were disturbed by our relationship and could we at least sit apart during our visit to his church. I assume I was to go the black christian section and her wherever. It never really dawned on me that black parishoners were segregated because I sat where I wanted to and told him I did not see what difference it made where I sat if I believed in the same triune god he did and if people were disturbed by our interracial relationship, that was their problem. He got angry and told me, 2inches from my face that this was his church and I had to do what he said if I was to remain a part of his church. Believe he came close to getting fucked up that night, and me to jail, but my friend pulled me out of the office and after that night, I never went back. He was right it was his church and the black people that let him and parishoners segregate and disrespect them, I don't to this day understand their reasoning for letting this Southern Baptist bastard disrespect them. But that was their problem. I NEVER let anyone disrespect me.
So maybe not everyone of them were racist, maybe only 99%. One white couple was nice to us, but they excused his behavior as that's the way it was. He was preach and he was not wrong. Black Southern Baptists are seen as christians but different christians. Black christians had the mark of Cain on them, so they were fucked from birth. I studied a long time after my friend and I quit that church because of their disrespect. So your sarcasm IS NOTED and I laugh at answers like yours and YES, I say it is still one of the most hateful and racist denominations in ameriKKKa.. This incident struck deep into my heart and I really studied racism in ameriKKKan religion for the next 20 years and yes white Southern Baptists are some of the most racist, in theology and action. You have a good one
lpbk2713
(42,696 posts)You were absolutely right in how you handled it.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)volumes. I'm so sorry that happened, but not surprised. Thank you for writing that. Perhaps it will open some eyes.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)for a long, long time. Once I gave up on ameriKKKan religion I did better.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I have seen some of it happen, but I'm a white guy, so it hasn't happened to me. I can imagine, though. I'm very sorry it happened to you. Hypocrisy began my departure from religion. It's still evident, even at a glance, too. Many cannot admit the truth.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Straw is much used here.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)The all qualifier started the strawman and youve chosen to expand upon it, while pretending it had any validity to begin with.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Thus validating the initial observation.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Seems perfectly reasonable.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am simply using the scientific method of observation and analysis to observe behavior and analyze possible motivation. Nearly every subsequent data point so far has confirmed my initial observation.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Virtually every other post concerns your manufactured 11th commandment perceived victimization and just today you were whining about another posters threads you evidently feel are unfair to you.
If you were genuinely concerned with the scientific method, you might want to test the effect of your own emotional interest in the subject matter.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I might even say that your phrasing of my responses as incessant whining reveal something.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)...Id say it reveals to you more perceived victimization. And you arent asking for comments you are drawing firm conclusions about things you cant possibly know while pretending theres the least bit of science to it.
Meanwhile much to your chagrin Im free to make my own observations and draw my own conclusions from them.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If I see data points that point to possible alternative conclusions, I shall evaluate them.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)So I have little doubt the victimism will continue while you are on your alleged quest for new data points.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I have observed the same phenomenon about a very few here.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)...and leading you down the primrose path.
Just my observation, though.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Seeing as how the first 11 are taken.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)to mitigate personal bias? Have any of your observations been tested to see if they can be independently replicated? It's hard for me to believe you have a real dedication to the scientific method, but I would love to see your work that proves that to be an incorrect conclusion on my part.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)whether a post is classified positive, negative, or neutral. It's possible that this classification is a group effort, with numerous personal messages providing the opinions of anonymous team members on the nature of a given post.
Of course, he has not explained his criteria for determining the classification of each post, nor has the stated the bases upon which he chooses which posts are worthy of study and which can be ignored.
It's all very mysterious.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)out how racist the denomination is with my research and they loved black people being enslaved, they started in 1845. The reason they are a "thing" with me is they were racist to me and tried to shame my then almost wife because she was with me. There are other reasons we did not get married, but this incident caused more stress in our relationship.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)But I guess some want to pretend they are so much different now.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)There was no basis upon which to tell the Christians who supported slavery that they were wrong.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)In some people's hearts as well. More's the pity.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)That's not the point at all. But, you know that, too.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You had me scared!
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)You keep trying to push a meme that Christianity is okay now because there is no more slavery and no Christian supports it today. You are wrong.
Here in California I will often see slaves selling strawberries on streets. And there is no end to racists longing for the good old days of slavery. Here's just one quote:
... If slavery were so God-awful, why didnt Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasnt there a war before 1861?
The South has always stood by the Constitution and limited government. When one attacks the Confederate Battle Flag, he is certainly denouncing these principles of government as well as Christianity.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You ought to file a suit against that as a violation of the Constitution. Don't just talk about slavery here on DU. Do something about it!!
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)There are many people trying to bring change, some may even be Christians. That doesn't mean there is no slavery today and that there are monsters calling themselves Christians. (Trump)
ollie10
(2,091 posts)For example, the Catholics.....
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994 sets out the official position:
The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother .... both in the flesh and in the Lord."[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery
I am confident that the other Christian churches have similarly condemned slavery today.
If there are christian people out there supporting slavery, it is against the rulings and wishes of their Christian church.....
I mean.....people break the commandments all the time, cheat on their wives, kill people, steal, and etc.....that doesn't mean the church supports debauchery.
And Trump is about the most irreligious person in history!
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Sex trafficking is slavery. People having household servants and not paying them a real wage is slavery. Importing people and forcing them to give you the money they earn from work is slavery. All of those things are happening everywhere in the United States. Even where you live.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Christian churches have specifically condemned slavery.
For example the Catholics:
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994 sets out the official position:
The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother .... both in the flesh and in the Lord."[15]
I don't know of any Christian Church (certainly not any of the main line ones) that has not condemned slavery.
So it is clear that any christian that supports slavery is doing that against the wishes and rules of their church. Sorta like a christian who cheats on his wife.....he may do that and he might call himself a christian, but that does not mean that the christian church supports adultery.
I know you have said that you are not interested in teachings back in the biblical day.....that today is what matters. OK. Today, Christian churches condemn slavery.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Why DID. Not Why DO. You failed to notice that. We don't have chattel slavery any longer in this country. We used to. And it was supported by many people who called themselves Christians. They pointed to Bible verses that also supported or did not condemn slavery.
You keep asking about now. Past tense is about the past.
So, I'm not going to entertain your question any further. Past tense, Ollie.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)...are you going to deny this?
My point is that the church today condemns slavery. The Catholic catechism explains that pretty clearly. And that was more than 2 decades ago.
There may be racists who disobey their church teachings and support slavery.....people disobey the church every day.
You want to talk about the past, it seems, but only selective parts of it.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I know every chapter and verse in the Bible from multiple readings. I know what the Bible says about slavery and the treatment of slaves. I know that slavery is never prohibited in the Bible.
Are you going to deny this?
I think you aren't paying attention to what I have written. Really. I'm done.
Civic Justice
(870 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2018, 10:16 PM - Edit history (2)
has long been the lusting of man... which turned him to twist, contort and flat-out push convoluted injustices of the words of the Bible.
Anyone ever read
Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Therefore if you don't care to be a slave or made into one, then one should not care to see another be a slave nor made into one.
Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
It might be wise to not let Vanity, Greed, Malice and Avarice mentality when it comes to Money. "consumed in material measure" lead you to believe in the abuse of other mankind.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)docile, servile subjects.
Look at the NT. Paul tells slaves to just suck it up, your next life will be way better, PROMISE!!!1! lol
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Pie in the sky...I've heard that one before...
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)IIRC It says so in the Bible: A Jew should not take another Jew for a slave. And I cannot really think of an example where Christians enslaved fellow Christians. Bondage Yes, but straight-up slavery? No.
It's easy to be for slavery if slavery only happens to foreigners.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)Second, the Bible did allow the Hebrews to own other other Hebrews as property. The rules were different, but it was spelled out exactly what a master had to do to make a (male) bondservant his property for life.
"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go 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. But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." Exodus 21 : 1-6
So, all the master had to do to get a slave for live is to buy a bondsman who is single, and provide him with a female slave to be his wife. It's not a sure thing, but there was an excellent chance there would be children and the man would love his family and would not want to abandon them, and the only way for him to remain with his family was to agree to be enslaved permanently.
bobbieinok
(12,858 posts)He staes the white christians in the south created a theology to support their practice of slavery. This then lives on today in the world view (supported by their theology) of today's Evangelicals.
Doodley
(8,976 posts)A feeling of superiority that continues to this day among white evangelicals with the condemnation of gays and non-believers and their overwhelming support of Trump who shares many of their grievances, and that reinforces their self-righteousness. It has nothing to do with religious texts and following the example of Jesus, but about them feeling that they are above all others.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)assent to slavery? I guess the idea of a democratic republic is bad?
What is your point exactly?
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Slaves weren't considered to be people to those founders who supported slavery, apparently. It was a real flaw in their thinking at the time. We still haven't completely recovered from that kind of thinking, apparently, since the people who had slaves as ancestors, or who look like they might have had such ancestors still aren't treated the same as others.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)separate of culture and historical context. Everybody had the institution of slavery past the end of the Bronze age. Then it seems slavery made a real comeback with European colonization. Cotton was a lucrative industry that demanded lots of cheap labor. I think we overplay the influence of religion which is more often reflective of current culture, which is influenced by world circumstances; both difficulties and opportunities.
That is why I believe in God, but don't practice any religion. The value I find in any of the great Axial Age religions are those things that teach me how to keep the focus on myself and my actions, rather than trying to use God to change the World.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Period. There is absolutely no possible justification for it, assuming the law of reciprocity applies. The only way it can be justified is to consider the enslaved to be less than human.
Any culture that allows slavery is simply wrong on its face.
That's my opinion, of course.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)But all ethics are contextual and all philosophy is relative. Without a God, isn't it all a just matter of opinion? What sets the line between right and wrong? Isn't conscience, according to pure science, just a genetic trait that allowed us to survive better through cooperation? Some societies did very well with forcing the cooperation of others. Maybe some genes do better in the long run by dominating others, at least for a while?
If there is a singe objective set of overriding ethics and morals, that is universally applicable, maybe that is all that God is?
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)The rule of reciprocity was independently recognized by virtually every known culture. Not followed, necessarily, but recognized as a universal behavioral standard.
We know it in the West as The Golden Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
However, it is a universal understanding by thinking people.
It is often not honored, however, through dehumanizing foreigners, strangers, and people of different races. That is the excuse given for slavery. The ethical principle, though, still applies, but gets modified to suit cultural needs.
I maintain that the principle of reciprocity is the primary and universal foundation for all ethics. I do not expect that principle to be followed, of course. It obviously is not and has not been followed. It remains, however, the root of all ethical and moral behavior.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)was like howling at the moon in the swirl of historical events. Yet it is in the center of all the great religions and spiritual practices today. Many happen to discover, and practice, that ethic and a great number get there through their religion. Many do not, and that includes the religious and non-religious.
That's why I am not religious, but very circumspect when people attack religion with a road brush.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Some people try to follow that rule. Where they succeed, it is praiseworthy. Otherwise, it's just a topic of conversation.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)but for me, it is a spiritual thing. It is an experience beyond description, and frankly a I am little confused why so many on here are so quick to attack that which they have not experienced. On the other hand, it is their prerogative and hopefully based on a personally developed sense of ethics.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Slavery and was legal in most of the world in 1800, but illegal almost everywhere by 1900. I don't think the world suddenly decided to follow the golden rule some bright mornng in 1842. Rather, industrialization gave us machines to replace slaves.
jes06c
(114 posts)You have to realize the mindset of the authors of the New Testament. The first generation of Christians believed that Christ's second coming would come within their lifetime. Once a history professor explained this to me, the New Testament made a lot more sense. You definitely get the vibe that the authors of this he epistles weren't that concerned about social justice. They seem content to tell Christians to suffer in silence. Makes sense, because Jesus is returning next Tuesday and then it will all be a moot point, so just tough it out and stay focused on spiritual matters until then.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It's a long time since those ancient days, though. And we're stuck with the Bible as it is. As far as we know, Jesus didn't return, and people appear to still be expecting that to occur sometime. Meanwhile, believers are still quoting from the New Testament, none of which was written by anyone living at the time Jesus was supposed to be around.
It's a problem.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)If not, it's worth looking into. It is what scholars have deduced to be the earliest writings regarding Jesus and are only a book of sayings attributed to Jesus. All very spiritual, all about how we as individuals can live a spiritual life. They have gleaned this text from comparing the commonality of many canonical and non-canonical writings.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)If you're talking about the Q Source, Its existence is merely a hypothesis. If someone finds a copy of it, then it will be interesting. Until then, it is just speculation by academics.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)is speculation and merely hypothesis by academics.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)from which conclusions, right or wrong, are drawn. In the case of documents, however, one cannot automatically project back from existing documents to non-existent ones. That is what is being done in the case of the Q source. Some believe that such a source existed. Others do not. Arguments are made on both sides.
Given the ease of altering and editing throughout history, I am a purist when it comes to documents. If the original does not exist for examination, the earliest existing document is as far back as one can go. And even it may contain alterations and edits to the original source, even if you assume that source existed at one time.
Archaeology studies what physical evidence exists. It draws conclusions about cultures and civilizations based on that evidence. However, when it comes down to the sourcing of actual documents, the trail truly ends with the earliest document that can be studied. Anything else is simply guesswork.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)of what Jesus actually said as much as evidence of an early Christianity that was very inwardly focused and grounded in love, empathy and decency. Politics, culture and history then took those nuggets and ran with it, shaping and informing the rest around it to suit cultural and political needs and desires.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Early Christianity no longer exists, and what does exist today of Christianity has very little to do with early Christianity. Instead, it is an institutionalized religion that is a human construct, in my opinion. Early Christianity is only of archaeological and anthropological interest, really. We know little of its details.
My interest lies only in religion's effect on people who do not follow a religion and on our political system. I do not feel that the overall effect is a positive one, as you might have guessed.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)I believe that religion isn't so much the cause of the negativity as the reflection of the negativity in society and culture. Religion has never been the leader so much as the tool. Southerners didn't enslave Africans because the Bible told them to, people enslaved Africans to pick cotton, a hugely labor intensive product at the time.
On the other hand, there are weaved into all religions, deeply personal and inward looking principles of spirituality that can be separated from the historical and cultural chaff, that might make one ethical and help them find serenity. That has been my personal experience of faith, which I have found by studying many faiths and the underlying universal spiritual principles.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Such a Christianity has never existed.
It has ALWAYS reflected the moral flaws of the people who practice it.
Always.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)jes06c
(114 posts)Many scholars have tried to cobble together what they think we're the original sayings of Jesus. We have the same problem with Jesus that we have with Socrates. Neither Socrates nor Jesus wrote anything, so we have to rely on their disciples. Just as it's tricky to decipher where Socrates ends and Plato begins, it's tricky to puzzle out where Jesus ends and Paul and the evangelists begin.
And then you have to remember that most scholars believe that there was no one Paul, and that the many epistles bearing his name were likely written by a few different people.
And then you have to remember that all these people were followers of Christianity so their writings are obviously biased. Wouldn't it be interesting if Pilate or Caiphas had written a memoir of their encounters with Jesus?
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Except
1. They were interested in social justice
2. Jesus spoke about social justice
3. The old testament spoke about social justice too for that matter
4. Early christions were out there and were not sitting back waiting for the 2nd coming, many were mattyred
catrose
(5,047 posts)It wasn't for life; I think it was 7 years at the most, more like indentured servitude. Admittedly, 7 years could be for life, depending on the work you were doing.
Here's a book that goes into the theological knots people tied themselves into:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00W1W601S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And different ways of getting around those regulations, as prescribed by the Bible.
At the end of the day, owning another human being as property, whether it is for 7 years or for life, is fucked up. And you'd think an omnibenevolent deity ostensibly concerned for the welfare of his creations would have thought to mention it when he came down to kick it with us for 30 years. But no, he had bigger fish to fry. Like jacking off.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Slaves were also used differently for things like book keeping, teaching, the priesthood etc... A life time of slavery also wasn't an inheritable trait.
catrose
(5,047 posts)All of it, especially the not-inheritable part.
So the defenders of slavery were comparing apples & oranges, as is frequently done today.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2018, 04:06 PM - Edit history (2)
Muslims weren't allowed to have muslim slaves so conversion was used as a strategy for excaping bondage just as often as you would expect. However once again a lot of these slaves weren't doing heavy labor, so there are plenty of examples of Jewish scribes and accountants not bothering to convert because they had places of relative comfort.
It was also very common for Muslim rulers to free ever slave in their kingdom as the same time a few times during their lives just to make sure they emptied their sin bank before they died. (my term not theirs, but think along the lines of a plenary indulgence built into the religion for the act of freeing slaves and you get the point.)
Voltaire2
(12,622 posts)slavery was not so bad.
The same argument was and is being made about plantation slavery.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It dehumanizes people so they can be treated like farm animals. There is no possible defense for it.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)And most often the Christian character of the slave owners made bondage under them significantly worse. Do you think you have the standing to judge Fredrick Douglass first hand experience? Most sane people would be willing to defer to his expert judgement.
Voltaire2
(12,622 posts)defense of slavery by, ironically, invoking Douglas.
Ill give you credit for trying.
But trying to defend slavery by claiming this form of one human owning another human wasnt quite as awful as that form over there is still defending slavery.
Its indefensible.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Trying too pretend that all slavery is the same is preposterous. All forms of slavery are evil but there is no doubt that Aesop for example had a far better life than a southern plantation slave and that is the exact point that Douglass was making.
It's like saying getting your car taken is all equally bad when being car jacked raped and murdered is worse than being car jacked and forced to empty your bank accounts and not be raped and murdered. Car jacking is always evil but some car jacking is worse just like slavery.
It just so happens that when you look at the body of law common practice that was developed by Christians in the west was quantifiable worse than anything anyone dreamed up before.
All the programs against the jews were evil and yet the holocaust was still worse, see it isn't hard to find gradations of evil.
When you are arguing about slavery against Fredrick Douglass chances are you are horribly and disgustingly wrong.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Nobody is pretending all slavery is the same nor denying anything Fredrick Douglas wrote. One need not read any more than your first sentence.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)"claiming this form of one human owning another human wasnt quite as awful as that form over there is still defending slavery"
Try reading all the sentences next time before you start crying strawman.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)=/
"Trying too pretend that all slavery is the same"
= Non-sequitur
For further reading, see...
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)you try to tackle logic. Very poor jobs on both fronts displayed here, and rather pathetic when taken in the greater context.
"Voltare" was saying that pointing out one form of slavery wasn't as bad as another form of slavery was a defense of slavery.(the only strawman in this subthread fyi, but as people with class know you only look like a bore when you go exclaiming fallacy to win rhetorical points so I engaged with the subject matter rather than something irrelevant to the conversation.)
More over "Voltare" said that the line of argument was disgusting. I pointed out I was using Fredrick Douglass' argument and saying that Douglass' was defending slavery when he pointed out that christians invented the worst form of slavery to date was actually disgusting.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
While I'm sure you'll easily make a baker's dozen before long, you'll have to do so without my continued participation. Please do continue though and I'm sure you will. The last word seems vitally important to you and I'm sure you'll insure victory with it, at least in your own mind.
Cheers!
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)You should try a real book on logic so you can understand what you are talking about and not just blow hot air.
Once you are done you can diagram this sub thread and I'll be waiting for my apology.
Voltaire2
(12,622 posts)the thesis I objected to of a benign slavery in biblical times, or any time for that matter.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)that all slavery is the same, nor does it deny anything Fredrick Douglass wrote.
While there was indentured servitude for one's fellow Hebrews (which I don't consider very moral in the first place), the Bible, mainly in Exodus 21 explained where to get your lifelong slaves (from other local tribes) and how to essentially trick fellow Hebrews who were temporary slaves into becoming permanent ones by finding them a wife (women slaves, surprise-surprise, did not have the option of going free). At the end of his time as an indentured servant, the slave could leave, but the wife and any kids from the union stayed, or he could proclaim he loved his master and wanted to stay and then have an awl driven through his ear to indicate permanent slave. And then one could pass these slaves down to your kids and even beat them as badly as you wanted as long as they could get up and walk in a day or two, etc.
Then in the New Testament, Jesus told slaves to obey their masters, no matter how cruel, etc.
So let's stop pretending that the Bible is some sort of worthwhile moral code. Like with most issues (such as homosexuality), any Christians lauded for fighting against slavery were ignoring the word of God and were more moral because of it.
TlalocW
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)in any detail. We aren't really able to reconstruct the actual ways people lived and behaved. That's especially true when it comes to less important members of those societies, and slaves were certainly at the bottom of that list. People who are proclaiming that slavery wasn't so bad in Biblical times are just guessing. They have no idea, really.
Some people in the United States also claim that the lives of slaves were not so bad. It's a way to deny just how horrible slavery is. It's deplorable, at best, and downright evil, at worst, to make such claims. And yet, those claims are made.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)if they claimed that was what the laws in the Bible say about slavery.
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 bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Leviticus 25 : 44-46
Even for Hebrew slaves, only the men had to be set free after seven years.
"If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do." Exodus 21 : 7
Owners could beat their slaves to death, as long as the slave lingered for a few days before he or she died.
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." Exodus 21 : 21
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2018, 03:17 PM - Edit history (2)
The world had ever seen? I think that is the real question.
I see a lot of post here about how ever other major religion held slaves, but those deflections are only just that. No other group but Christians ever invented a form of slavery as horrible as what was built in the American Plantation.
I would suggest David Walkers Appeal is required reading for this discussion, more specifically. ARTICLE III.OUR WRETCHEDNESS IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE PREACHERS OF THE RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/walker/walker.html
"The Pagans, Jews and Mahometans try to make proselytes to their religions, and whatever human beings adopt their religions they extend to them their protection. But Christian Americans, not only hinder their fellow creatures, the Africans, but thousands of them will absolutely beat a coloured person nearly to death, if they catch him on his knees, supplicating the throne of grace. This barbarous cruelty was by all the heathen nations of antiquity, and is by the Pagans, Jews and Mahometans of the present day, left entirely to Christian Americans to inflict on the Africans and their descendants, that their cup which is nearly full may be completed. I have known tyrants or usurpers of human liberty in different parts of this country to take their fellow creatures, the coloured people, and beat them until they would scarcely leave life in them; what for? Why they say "The black devils had the audacity to be found making prayers and supplications to the God who made them!!!!""
I would also suggest Frederick Douglass' addendum to his autobiography which is entirely about the Christianity and slavery. As Douglass noted it was the most christian slave owner who were far and way the most twisted and evil. When a slave got sold on they would pray in hope that their new owner would not be a godly man.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I just don't know. For me, ownership of another human being is the worst sort of evil. Once you go that far, I think there is no depth beyond which you can sink. American slavery quickly became a horror story, with some people even breeding slaves for sale.
It is the very worst element of US history, in my opinion, that can be imagined. For me, it poisons the American historical experience and demonstrates that we cannot claim to be the example of freedom we seem to believe we are.
That it was supported by Christians colors my view of Christianity, as well. We don't have that stain any longer, but who is to say it could not occur again? Our history is short, and history has a way of repeating itself.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)This is something I can not get my head around.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)It's the result of years of indoctrination during early childhood, usually complete with threats, by adults they trusted.
Freelancer
(2,107 posts)Economic slavery endures. It's in every mahogany plank, every cup of coffee, every iPhone, every snort of cocaine. It's capitalism's secret ingredient.
When the U.N. gave veto power to certain powerful nations, that was akin to the ABOMINABLE concession at the founding of the U.S. that stated African Americans would be considered 3/5 men. The U.N. still operates under that kind of power concession. Why?
Simple. People with stuff fear being swamped. They feel compelled by religion to give thanks for being the recipients of the bounty of the world. They give table scraps and lip service in homage to New Testament ideas. Yet, at the same time, as inheritors of wealth and power, they loath the thought of presiding over its dissolution. Nobody with money bequeaths it to the poorest relative. They leave it to the one that will continue to grow what they've jealously amassed -- to another would-be "master."
If our actions in defense of economic slavery, out of fear of being swamped, bring about actually being overrun, I wonder if we'll see the irony.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It's still a terrible thing, and it certainly exists, as does chattel slavery in some places. But, it's a different discussion, really.
Response to MineralMan (Reply #117)
Freelancer This message was self-deleted by its author.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I started this thread to discuss the support Christianity brought to the slavery present here in the past. A good discussion could be had on slavery as a broader concept, but that wasn't the topic I introduced. A different thread would be needed to discuss all exploitation by humans of other humans, I think. That is something that is still with us, and very prevalent.
I can't draw any essential connection between Christianity and that kind of exploitation, really. If you can, perhaps you can create a new thread where it can be discussed.
no_hypocrisy
(45,771 posts)If slavery were re-legitimized today, it would be just as popular, if not more.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)They've been told it will be returned "an hundredfol.
They're "sowing seed on fertile ground," they're told:
Matthew 13: 8
King James Bible
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Christianity as a whole is a faith-for-reward system. Whether that reward is money or a McMansion in the sky is immaterial. The motivation remains the same.
I think it is a mistake to dismiss these people as phonies. They have conviction.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)not just conviction.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But I think we need to differentiate the leaders from the rank and file. The Joel Osteens of the world might not actually put much stock in Jesus, but the John and Jane Smiths of the world, living paycheck to paycheck and hanging on Osteen's every word, certainly do.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I don't blame the victims. They're being duped.
raging moderate
(4,281 posts)Last edited Fri May 4, 2018, 10:24 AM - Edit history (2)
A few years back, I was gratified to read that the KKK people are still boiling mad at my Methodist Episcopal preacher ancestors. I don't care that they didn't leave us any money or property. That heritage means more to me than any diamond or trust fund ever could have. Thank you, Lewis Cooley and Charles Wyatt! I am not trained in this, but I do remember some of their thoughts. Let's see. "Thou shalt remember that thy ancestors were strangers...were slaves in Egypt...thou shalt not oppress strangers (or slaves) among you. There is a stringent set of rules for the fair treatment of slaves in the Torah. A master was supposed to furnish food, clothing, a spouse, and an appropriate education. Remember that New England slave girl, Phyllis Wheatley, who wrote the poetry? Her owners had read that passage and felt obligated to obey. Since she was very smart, they just kept teaching her. Reading comprehension diligence probably contributed to the quick demise of slavery in northern New England (also the long winters, when they were kept inside by the cold). Oh, and there is that time Jesus talked about any Christian who beat his servants, saying, in so many words, "that man is disobeying me, his master, and he will be punished." These words were twisted by the slaveholders, who conveniently left out the first part of the passage and garbled the middle part to pretend it was a justification for beating slaves. Of course, there was the famous runaway slave whom Paul urged to return to his master. However, Paul wrote to the master that Onesimus, although legally his slave, was actually and more importantly his brother in Christ, and should be forgiven for whatever he had done wrong. Paul was such a rigid little crank by nature, sometimes he sounded meaner than he was, but he wrote this: "There is neither Jew nor Greek nor male nor female nor slave nor free, but all are one in Christ Jesus." And Jesus said: "They shall come from the north and the south and the east and the west, to sit down at the table together, in the Kingdom of God." My Methodist ancestors sometimes invited Black people to stay with them, since Black people were actually not allowed to go to hotels or restaurants. They waited on those Black houseguests themselves, and they were happy to do so.