Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Since the bible includes revelation, approach 2 becomes equally legitimate.  The fact that Christian beliefs don't square with the text doesn't make it a strawman.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by revelation here; but I agree it doesn't represent a strawman since it isn't representing anyone's position except their own.

[Deesse23]

It's a jumble of cluster that's supposed to be figured out.

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.

[vulcanlogician]

Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny? The answer is, unfortunately yes. Or at least it can and sometimes does.

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.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

None of magic books endorsements of slavery -or- misogyny proceed from anything remotely like logic.

[Paleophyte]

Every 50 years?!? That's impressively bad. Pretty much a death sentence given the life expectancy back then.

Deuteronomy 34:7
"And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated."

Didn't know you were relying on a book of mythology for your demographic data. Even then, 5/12ths of your life, IF you live to be as old as Moses? You get a lighter sentence for murder in the first now days.

Now let's look at those ifs, ands, or buts that you claim aren't there. Just a little further down the page we find:

" And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile. And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God."
Leviticus 25: 39-43

Translation: Thou shalt not have Israelite slaves. Israelites in your service must be released on the year of Jubile

"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. 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. 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."

Translation: You can have heathens as slaves, bought and sold as possessions, and you may keep them forever regardless of how many Jubilees they might live through.

So yeah, slaves according to god's on laws personally handed to Moses on Mount Sinai. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts.

Live I said earlier, POSSESSION does not mean PROPERTY.

If you let me borrow your PROPERTY, then I take your PROPERTY in my POSSESSION, therefore POSSESSION does not imply OWNERSHIP.

Hilarious watching you split hairs. What do you call a possession that you can buy, sell and inherit? Property.

'for ever' (two separate words) and 'forever' (one word) have two completely different definitions...

Really? What's the definition of "for ever"? Because in no definition I've ever heard does "ever" equal "fifty years".

Hebrew servants went free after 7 years, non-Hebrew went free after 50 (if your agreed to term of service lasted that long).

Forever dude. Or until death do them part.

Because or prodigious brains recall the tale of how the Israelites were slaves in Egypt without the actual word "slave" ever being used in the narrative. Or are you suggesting that Pharaoh employed indentured servants?

*emphasis mine*
The word "servant" isn't used in the narrative either so what's your point? MY point was you can't replace the word servant with slave as if they are the same thing.

That you can talk about slaves quite effectively without ever using the word and that the Bible does exactly that.

[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.

[Silver]

Seems to me that an all powerful god would have had a book written that didn't need interpretation.  What's with all the riddles, conflicting verses, this is just a story but this is the truth stuff?

Just say what you mean and move on.

It's a jumble of cluster that's supposed to be figured out.

To be honest, the book did mean only what the church wanted it to mean when the majority of the population was illiterate and depended upon the clergy to read it to them.

But then we became literate, us monsters.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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?

[Huggy Bear]

Deuteronomy 34:7
"And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated."

Didn't know you were relying on a book of mythology for your demographic data. Even then, 5/12ths of your life, IF you live to be as old as Moses? You get a lighter sentence for murder in the first now days.

Cite chapter and verse.

Now all of the sudden chapter and verse isn't good enough.

The average life expectancy was just that, an AVERAGE. Things like infant mortality rates and war brought the average life expectancy, it doesn't mean that people didn't live past the age of 40.

Live I said earlier, POSSESSION does not mean PROPERTY.

If you let me borrow your PROPERTY, then I take your PROPERTY in my POSSESSION, therefore POSSESSION does not imply OWNERSHIP.

Hilarious watching you split hairs.

We're literally talking about 'law', is it also hilarious that there is a whole profession dedicated to studying and interpreting law?

What do you call a possession that you can buy, sell and inherit? Property.

Then by your logic, NFL players are also property, since they can be bought and sold (through trades) and, inherited...

'for ever' (two separate words) and 'forever' (one word) have two completely different definitions...

Really? What's the definition of "for ever"? Because in no definition I've ever heard does "ever" equal "fifty years".

Hebrew servants went free after 7 years, non-Hebrew went free after 50 (if your agreed to term of service lasted that long).

Forever dude. Or until death do them part.

So your just going to ignore the parts where it explicitly states:

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

"And ye shall hallow 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."

*emphasis mine*
The word "servant" isn't used in the narrative either so what's your point? MY point was you can't replace the word servant with slave as if they are the same thing.

That you can talk about slaves quite effectively without ever using the word and that the Bible does exactly that.

The bible made pretty clear what was happening to the Hebrews by stating that they had TASKMASTERS, their lives were made BITTER with HARD BONDAGE and RIGOROUS WORK and to top it off the Pharaoh was trying to kill their newborn children.

You guys whine about people being indentured servants but when asked to provide an alternative solution none are given beyond "help everyone for free"...

There is literally no currency other than ones labor at the time.

When poor Europeans wanted to immigrate to the US back in the day, they would offer to become indentured servants because they had no other way to pay for the fare. Since you guys consider it to be immoral, how would you handle it differently?