Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[Deesse23]

I follow Jesus and as to which Paul quote I ignore, neither. I accept both. They are not contradictory. Slaves should obey their masters. + All people are one in Christ clearly means: If you're a person who is a slave... be an obedient one, because we're all the same in Christ master and slave. The Bible does speak of abolishment of slavery in certain instances. The Bible does prescribe people be taken as prisoners of war, which I already conceded. You defined prisoners of war as slaves; so for the sake of our discussion the Bible does condone some type of slavery, specifically prisoners of war. 
Thus by my below logic, the answer to this thread is if you consider prisoners of war as slaves then the Bible does condone some form of slavery. It also condones the abolishment of some types of slavery. So then the Bible condones slavery and abolishment of slavery.

For clarity on the entire thread, I fully admit that the Bible doesn't condemn all forms of slavery while I personally do. I don't think it dictates slavery either. It is descriptive about slavery, but that isn't condoning or condemning. The idea that it DOES specifically mention freeing slaves, is abolitionist. I know you must really want it seem like a figment of your imagination, but it appears you have blinders on too.



1.  "which thou shalt have, ...of them shall ye buy " = "whom you may have: you may buy" I already clearly showed my reasoning on this. Maybe the Common English Bible translation will clear this up, "Regarding male or female slaves that you are allowed to have: You can buy a male or a female slave from the nations that are around you."

2. To answer your question "IF the bible prohibits SOME instances of slavery, then it does NOT prohibit some OTHER instances of slavery, right?" The Bible does prohibit some people from being slaves. Your very own position pivots on the 'doesn't prohibit'. By your own admission the Bible doesn't dictate people own slaves. I think we're getting hung up on the word supporting vs dictating. I think you and I both know and agree that the Bible doesn't Dictate people have slaves, just what to do with them. Is that correct? 

3. "What does person x do if it supports SOME instances of activity y? Does that mean person x does NOT support activity y AT ALL?" Person x supporting some instance of y would support (in all cases or partially) activity y. I don't equate supporting or encouraging something the same as you I believe. If x prohibits SOME instances of y, and it does NOT prohibit some OTHER instances of y, then all that can be said is that x prohibits y. I think you are jumping to x supports y in some instances without citing where x said to go do y. I think you're saying by not condemning slavery as a whole you feel the Bible is supportive of it (or at least some instances of it). Is that correct?

4." while not endorsing SOME instances of slavery, it does endorse SOME instances of slavery." If it endorses (from my perspective) slavery in any sense it supports slavery. I just don't see where it is endorsing (from my understanding) slavery simply by not condemning slavery entirely or being descriptive about what to do in the situation you have slaves. Perhaps it would help me if you provided your definition here of endorse as I don't think we're on the same page there. Simply looking at  Paul's letters to Philemon about accepting back his slave as his brother instead of a slave should indicate an abolitionist stance to slave ownership.

The lenghts you are willing to go through to defend this are really amazing. The obfuscation, strawmen anf absurdities you utter make it abundantly clear that any conversation beyond this point is useless. You are even willing to abandon most simple, basic logic in your efforts to massage your book to say what you want it to say. You are deceiving yourself (and i completely agree with TGNs assessment of your, and Huggys, character).

Just a final example which makes it painfully obvious:

If x prohibits SOME instances of y, and it does NOT prohibit some OTHER instances of y, then all that can be said is that x prohibits y

Nope
All can be said is that x prohibits SOME instances of y (and it can be easily followed, if ones mind is not poisoned by religion, that x does NOT prohibit some OTHER instances of y). You just equate prohibiting y with prohibiting SOME of y by simply leaving out the upper case written word. Thats how far you go in your intellectual dishonesty.



As you said: You are better than your holy book, but you are bending over backwards to defend it. Think about it if you have some time, and if, some day, your indoctrination does not hinder you any more.