Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[WinterHold]

Yes it is.

“And the sons of Noah that went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole world overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.”

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-sl...k-excerpt/

and

Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_...2%3A9%2D10.

and

21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

Corinthians 7:21

and

18 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.

Peter 2:18

And many many more..my favourite though:

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 3:22

[Deesse23]

Hebrew servants went free after 7 years....

Not necessarily. Exodus 21 nicely explains how to exploit a loophole. How convenient for slavers back then, eh?
Still havent read your bible, eh?

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

[vulcanlogician]

Still, reasonable Christians are going to be more prone to take approach 1. That makes their position more defensible, but then other issues crop up. 

Right; so my question is do you think misogyny can still be justified using the more conservative bottom-up approach? Is there a way to begin with something like the two greatest commandments in your premises and logically reach the conclusion that hatred and contempt for women is the way to go?

IDK. I mean, a lawyer certainly could.

The question becomes why were the misogynistic things written in the first place? Can someone who thinks the Bible is the revealed word of God justify ignoring something if it's in there? So we have two lines of logic we can use.

1. The Bible is the revealed word of God.
2. The revealed word of God ought to be regarded as true.
3. The Bible contains misogynistic ramblings.
Therefore, those misogynistic ramblings ought to be regarded as true.

The Golden Rule being foundational....

1. I ought to only do unto others as I would have them do unto me.
2. Misogyny is hurtful and disrespectful to some people.
3. I wouldn't want people being hurtful or disrespectful to me.
Therefore, I ought not be misogynistic.

It seems there is a tug of war between following the Golden Rule, and seeing the Bible as the revealed word of God. I suppose whatever wins that tug of war in someone's inner dialogue may determine how well the Golden Rule does. I want the Golden Rule to win. But that doesn't mean that's what Christianity is all about. I think if either side holds more sway over the average Christian, it's the revealed word side.

[GUBU]

It seems to me that there are two broad strategies that are implemented when approaching Scripture; and given that they lead to different conclusions, they often reflect Christian/Atheist differences:

Approach 1 interprets the Bible bottom-up. As such, Christian's often lay the basics and fundamentals down at the base of the pyramid (things such as God is love or Treat your neighbor as yourself) and work their way up to less essential and more debatable parts of Scripture. And if a verse seems odd given the whole, it can be left with a question mark without consequence; or if it leads to a problematic interpretation, they can retreat to a lower step and course-correct. (Differences between religions often occur at the base of the pyramid, whereas differences between denominations occur near the top.)

Approach 2 interprets the Bible top-down. It takes the parts that seem problematic or debatable (things such as Paul said women should be silent in Church or There are verses about slavery), and makes them a starting point through which the rest of Scripture is interpreted. It inverts the pyramid, so to speak. In atheism this might lead to easy rejection of the whole structure, given that if the inverted base is removed, the entire pyramid collapses. And in radical Christian groups it might lead to extremism, given that a single verse shapes their entire interpretation of Scripture. 

My argument is that Approach 1 is the only appropriate approach. Whereas Approach 2 often results in a Strawman. For example, it leads to conclusions that many Christians would reject (such as your argument that Christianity inherently supports  X or Y). It also opens the door to "nutpicking," when you look for members that use Approach 2 to justify things like misogyny, and make them representative of Christianity.

Given this framework I would ask: Do you think that "If you're a Christian, and you want to justify your misogyny," that you could still do so using Approach 1?

Well, nobody takes approach 2. The reason atheists focus on the problematic parts is that many Christians regard scripture as the inerrant revealed word of God, with which no dispute may be taken. If someone says that to me, the first thing I'll do is focus on the problematic parts. Not just because *I* have a problem with them, but that I suspect that the believer also does.

Still, reasonable Christians are going to be more prone to take approach 1. That makes their position more defensible, but then other issues crop up. 

What necessarily privileges "Do unto others"? What makes that foundational? I'm aware of the two greatest commandments... and if you want to tackle that, we can. Seems to me, the two "greatest" commandments ought to supercede all others when in disagreement, but many Christians don't see any commandments superseding others. They rather want to force or warp all parts of the book to work together. Everything in the book is true. No one commandment supersedes another. But then why call any commandment "the greatest"?

I love the Golden Rule. Might be the best thing in the whole book. I wish it was regarded as foundational by more Christians. Because (maybe they hold it in principle, but historically speaking) Christians have violated the Golden Rule because of some other verse. Mind you, I'm not criticizing Christians for falling short of the Golden Rule. (It's a high bar, and I fall short of it too.) It's the justification that bothers me. And if something else in the Bible justifies breaking the Golden Rule, then that means it is not privilaged or foundational after all.

The problem for christers is that the Golden Rule is not new nor unique to the bible. It had been popping up for centuries in much better moral systems by the time Constantine came around.

But then there is a general problem for christers vis a vis the bible, what is good in it is not new, what is new in it is not good.

[Deesse23]

Right; so my question is do you think misogyny can still be justified using the more conservative bottom-up approach? Is there a way to begin with something like the two greatest commandments in your premises and logically reach the conclusion that hatred and contempt for women is the way to go?

IDK. I mean, a lawyer certainly could.

The question becomes why were the misogynistic things written in the first place? Can someone who thinks the Bible is the revealed word of God justify ignoring something if it's in there? So we have two lines of logic we can use.

1. The Bible is the revealed word of God.
2. The revealed word of God ought to be regarded as true.
3. The Bible contains misogynistic ramblings.
Therefore, those misogynistic ramblings ought to be regarded as true.

The Golden Rule being foundational....

1. I ought to only do unto others as I would have them do unto me.
2. Misogyny is hurtful and disrespectful to some people.
3. I wouldn't want people being hurtful or disrespectful to me.
Therefore, I ought not be misogynistic.

It seems there is a tug of war between following the Golden Rule, and seeing the Bible as the revealed word of God. I suppose whatever wins that tug of war in someone's inner dialogue may determine how well the Golden Rule does. I want the Golden Rule to win. But that doesn't mean that's what Christianity is all about. I think if either side holds more sway over the average Christian, it's the revealed word side.

Specifics override the general. The golden rule is general, specific misogynist commands clearly override this, age / which was first/last notwithstanding.

If general rules would override specifics.....why even have specifics? This "love thy neighbor overrides any immoral command you find elswhere in the bible " bullshit is nothing but a smokescreen.

[The Grand Nudger]

This thread has been a disgrace and an insult to the members of this board. Worse, that insult has come from the most inexplicable angles. It's managed to reduce even my own already dim view of the state of the faith of the christians on this board.

Do you know what moral grandstanding is?

Do you know what a moral thought looks like?  We've got Huggy approving slavery, Tack pretending he doesn't have eyes to see, you calling anyone who mentions the nasty shit in your magic book a duplicitous asshole.

Honestly, fuck all of you.  You're all disgusting.

[arewethereyet]

No; this has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with how people process information. You'll find the same differences in approach used in politics, science, and anywhere that communication is happening. You're not escaping interpretation by escaping religion.

Read all the words Breezy.

Are you really comparing what is written by a god to what is written by man?

What a surprise...no answer from the Breezy one.

I guess that what's supposed to be divine can be likened to politics, science, etc.

Just another load of BS.

*yawn*

[Spongebob]

One interesting angle to view this from is the early Christian era of Rome. The Roman Empire was strongly reliant on slave labor. But the practices and laws regarding slavery began to change in the late era and into Byzantium as Christianity emerged as a force within the empire. Christians were certainly not comfortable with other Christians being held as slaves, but were they as opposed to others in slavery, I'm not sure.

[The Grand Nudger]

Christianity has a long and productive relationship with slavery. Without slavery and servitude and exploitation and abject poverty there would be no christianity. Not as we know it christianity, no christianity at all. The method of expansion in the early movement was to fill a void in what we would call the social services of a state. To some extent, rome supported this (which, in hindsight, they might have determined to be a mistake). The roman intelligentsia and officials and functionaries looked down their nose at their servants and both nurtured and despised their christianization for a whole host of reasons.

When it became clear that the administrative state had failed the least of roman society, and given how much of rome-as-a-state was dependent on that least of it's members, christian authority picked a side. The right side, I think. The last pagan critics of christianity in rome hovered around the nature of the body of the faith. Complaining that the poor illiterate and unfortunate populace had been manipulated to their detriment by charity - food specifically.

Rather than deny that this was the sop, the christian authorities of the time simply conceded that they had, in fact, and explicitly, fed the poor as a way to spread the gospel - and condemned the roman state for having failed to feed those same people. The fear of the roman upper classes of christians was based on their having become a disaffected mob with cause.

Just like today, however, the economically anxious were represented by their betters, people who's interests were decidedly not their constituencies. This has been a recurring theme for abrahamism all along the way. Oceans of ink have been spilled wondering why a people who imagined themselves to have so recently escaped slavery in egypt and actually had just escaped subjugation elsewhere would then become a society based upon it. Why the bottom up christianization of rome by oppressed people would lead to a state even less tolerant and representative than the one it had replaced. Why immigrants to this country would flee their homes out of imposed poverty or abject intolerance and maintain an even more ruthless system here - not as the primary beneficiaries of that system...even..but as the middle agents purchasing their own humanity by denying the same of others.

I think the truth of the matter is borne out by an explication of that history. The belief in the rightness or wrongness of slavery, in abrahamism, is negotiable. Its always there for christian slavers to grasp at, and their christian slaves can (and do) come to think otherwise, for example. Advocating for it, denying it's very existence in practice or writ, and concern trolling over a moral response to it..all, are on the slavers side of that line...all, are optional.

[tackattack]

---

No; this has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with how people process information.

Please process this information for us:

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

---

OK.

First let's grab context:

Leviticus Chapter 25 KJV (Bolding and parenthesis mine for clarity):

---

25 And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord.

3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;

4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the Lord: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. (A)

5 That which groweth(B) of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not(A) reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.

6 And the sabbath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee, and for thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth with thee.

7 And for thy cattle, and for the beast that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be meat.

8 And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.

9 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.

10 And ye shall hallow(A) the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.(A)

11 A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.

12 For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field.

13 In the year(B) of this jubile ye shall(A) return every man unto his possession.

14 And if thou sell(B) ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought(B) of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not oppress one another(A):

15 According to the number of years after the jubile thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:

16 According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee.

17 Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt(A) fear thy God:for I am the Lord your God(B).

18 Wherefore ye shall do my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety.

19 And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall eat your fill, and dwell therein in safety.

20 And if ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase:

21 Then I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years.

22 And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat yet of old fruit until the ninth year; until her fruits come in ye shall eat of the old store.

23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

24 And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.

25 If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold.

26 And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it;

27 Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it; that he may return unto his possession.

28 But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubile: and in the jubile it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession.

29 And if a man sell a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; within a full year may he redeem it.

30 And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be established for ever to him that bought it throughout his generations: it shall not go out in the jubile.

31 But the houses of the villages which have no wall round about them shall be counted as the fields of the country: they may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the jubile.

32 Notwithstanding the cities of the Levites, and the houses of the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time.

33 And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the year of jubile: for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel.

34 But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold; for it is their perpetual possession.

35 And if thy(B) brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt(A) relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may(a) live with thee.

36 Take thou(A) no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live(a) with thee.

37 Thou (A)shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend(A) him thy victuals for increase.

38 I am the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.

39 And if thy(B) brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not(B) compel him to serve as a bondservant:

40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall(A) be with thee, and shall(A) serve thee unto the year of jubile.

41 And then shall(A) he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return(A) unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he(A) return(A).

42 For they are my servants(B), which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not(A) be sold as bondmen.

43 Thou shalt not(A) rule over him with rigour; but shalt(A) fear thy God.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have (B), shall be(A) of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye(a) buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you(B), of them shall ye(A) buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them(A) as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever(B): but over your brethren the children of Israel(B), ye shall not(A) rule one over another with rigour.

47 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself(B) unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:

48 After that he is sold(B) he may(a) be redeemed again; one of his brethren may(a) redeem him:

49 Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may(a) redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may(a) redeem him; or if he be able, he may(a) redeem himself.

50 And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubile: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to(B) the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.

51 If there be yet many years behind(B), according unto them he shall(A) give again the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for.

52 And if there remain but few years(B) unto the year of jubile, then he shall(A) count with him, and according unto his years shall he give him again the price of his redemption.

53 And as a yearly hired servant shall he be(B) with him: and the other shall not(A) rule with rigour over him in thy sight.

54 And if he be not redeemed(B) in these years, then he shall go out in the year of jubile, both he, and his children with him.

55 For unto me the children of Israel are servants(B); they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

---

A) This is prescriptive language, do this, don't do this
(a) This is prescriptive but seems optional
(B) This is descriptive language, it describes a condition 
(B) Followed by Italics, The presecriptive results based on the description
Underlined, is relevant to slavery, some areas skipped for time constraints

I hope this explains well enough why I don't see any descriptive language talking about those without slaves should be prescribed to go get some. I didn't think it was so difficult to communicate, but I'm truly blind where anyone sees the above in context to read "Go out and get some slaves". Maybe We're not all talking about the same thing.

OK to lay it out plainly. Yes, the Bible does talk about slavery. It prescribes behaviors and shalts for those with or receiving slaves. It discuss the behaviors of those said slaves, and their masters. It also clearly states that there is only one Master for the Isrealites and that's God. Perhaps I will try and state my perceptions of the atheist side for clarity, and see if someone would like to do the same for me.

IMO, some atheists here believe the following. Christianity and the Bible approve of and demand slavery, making Christians morally wrong. Christianity has also historically, had a long and successful use of fear and the Bible to promote, support and endorse slavery for societal gains, Therefore Christianity as a whole over time has and still does endorse slavery. Is this anywhere close?