Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[tackattack]

---

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

That is, perhaps, the shittiest logic I've ever heard.  So, to extrapolate, if a policeman shoots and kills an unarmed black man, then every police officer must shoot and kill every unarmed black man?

To address your earlier cop out statement.  What I actually said was that slavery was and had been an integral part of numerous ancient cultures since pre-history.  There is ample documentation of this in Egyptian, Greek, Hebrew, Roman, Persia and other cultures.  If you aren't aware of this, I suggest a deep dive into all of these histories.  Not only is it vastly educational but far more entertaining than watching Netflix.  Fully half of the Holy Bible is based on the Tanakh, which refers to slavery many times but never, ever declares it to be illegal or even unethical.  It's not even one of god's 10 commandments.  Even worse, the 9th commandment bans people from coveting their neighbors slaves!!!  So it's illegal to covet a slave, but not illegal to own a slave.  How fucked up is that?

Further, all through the New Testament, which we all now know is a highly curated collection of disconnected religious doctrines and letters, there's not one single "book" dedicated to blasting people for owning slaves or exploiting people.  There is even evidence that the early church used slave labor.  The fact is plain and clear, slavery was commonplace and anyone who opposed it would have been on the fringe of society.  That doesn't mean there weren't people who opposed slavery (other than slaves, that is).  I'm sure they existed, but were clearly not in a position to do much about it.  The ideas of slavery being a bad thing developed slowly and was clearly not based on any specific scripture because said scripture either doesn't exist or it was destroyed by the early Christians who saw it as blasphemous.  The great Christian Emperor Constantine, who turned Christianity into a "real" religion didn't even ban slavery.  But he was extraordinarily generous to slaves, for he made it illegal to kill your slaves.  Wow, great guy.  Academically, this was actually a move more consistent with slave treatment from previous cultures.

---

I agree that that particular logical statement was bad, and I agree with @Deesse23 's clarification that if x prohibits some instances of y then all that can be said is that x prohibits SOME instances of y.  I've clearly shown in two places where the Bible is abolitionist to some types of slavery. 

This is exactly the type of position I have a problem with " So it's illegal to covet a slave, but not illegal to own a slave.  How fucked up is that? " It's fucked up if that's what's going on but it's not. It's illegal to covet a slave, and you shouldn't have certain types of slaves and there is no statements as to the illegality of owning a slave and no dictate that you should have slaves (aside from an instance of prisoners of war). As @Angrboda pointed out the jocular phrase (misquoted to God). "That which isn't forbidden is permitted", or it's German opposite "everything which is not allowed is forbidden" , is about general power of competence. I'm aware of the historical and societal slavery you reference. The fact that it existed far before the Bible should just be another reason the Bible isn't the source of slavery. 

To address you and everyone else's response with my perspective, Yes the Bible does say that all men, women and children are slaves to something, and that that thing should be God. In that sense it does condone slavery. Specifically about chattel slavery it does give instructions on how to treat slaves and how slaves should behave. It also doesn't expressly require slavery. By the same assumptions the Build a bear workshop, CVS and Taco Bell condone slavery. They have not specified that it is illegal to own a slave, so they must support it right? They have not put out one single press release condemning slavery so by cancel culture logic, they must support it? The 100s of members of this forum that haven't chimed in must also condone slavery, because they haven't come out against it. This is the logic being presented to me.  X does prohibit some instances of y in this case, but you folks still claim x supports y. When you claim the previous and admit that x doesn't ask you to do y, what should I see here that I'm not?

@The Grand Nudger and @Deesse23  I understand your unwillingness to support a different view of Christianity than you already have. I know it's hard to read that Paul sent Philemon's servant back to him not to be a slave anymore. If you insist that I'm not reading Leviticus the same as you you're probably correct. I've tried really hard to see both of your perspectives and left aside anything most of the personal and not on topic stuff.  I will continue to think about the points both of you  made, but I don't want this to just get more frustrating. I appreciate the dialogue. 

[Spongebob]

This is exactly the type of position I have a problem with " So it's illegal to covet a slave, but not illegal to own a slave.  How fucked up is that? " It's fucked up if that's what's going on but it's not. It's illegal to covet a slave, and you shouldn't have certain types of slaves and there is no statements as to the illegality of owning a slave and no dictate that you should have slaves (aside from an instance of prisoners of war). As @Angrboda pointed out the jocular phrase (misquoted to God). "That which isn't forbidden is permitted", or it's German opposite "everything which is not allowed is forbidden" , is about general power of competence. I'm aware of the historical and societal slavery you reference. The fact that it existed far before the Bible should just be another reason the Bible isn't the source of slavery. 

I don't believe there is nearly enough to work with to claim "that isn't what's going on".  Here we have god, Jehova, or whatever you want to call it, giving his chosen people 10 (not 1000 or 100) laws to live by.  One would think that these must be the best of the best, the highest priority, the cream of the crop.  Not only does he waste 4 of them on basically the same rule (I'm god and you better not forget it), but when he finally gets to the concept of slavery, he doesn't say "don't do it", he just says don't be envious of your neighbors cool slaves.  That silence on slavery says a tremendous amount about the culture and society from whence it came because, you know, we all know this stuff really came from some high priest and not god almighty, so the priest put down the things he or his lot felt were the most critical things.  Honestly, I need no further evidence that man is the author of this religion and this book.  No god worth his salt would have wasted one of the 10 most important rules on envying slaves.  At least Odin would have said if you envy your neighbor because he has slaves, then just kill the bastard and take the slaves for yourself!  Now that's a god!

And I never suggested the Bible was the source for slavery; it existed almost everywhere in ancient times.  But you have to admit that many a Christian has used Biblical arguments to defend slavery.  That doesn't actually condemn the Bible, but it sure makes you wonder again, if an all powerful god didn't like slavery, why wouldn't he just say so.  Nope, just don't be envious; that's really bad for the soul.

[Deesse23]

@The Grand Nudger and @Deesse23  I understand your unwillingness to support a different view of Christianity than you already have.

Fuck.you.
Dont come here with this patronizing attitude after you have posted walls of awfully bad apologizing BS like you did, ok?

If you insist that I'm not reading Leviticus the same as you you're probably correct.

Fuck.you.again.
There is not much to "read" (into).

Does your god allow the yews to pass human beings down to their children (as if those human beings were like any other "posession"?
Yes
or
No

Did your god describe those poor people as a "posession"
Yes
or
no

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:

I've tried really hard to see both of your perspectives

No, you have not, and its painfully obvious you have ab-so-fucking-lutely no intend to.

It cant be anymore obvious that your god allows slavery, tells the jews where to buy them, how to treat them and to pass them down to their children. Period.

You are disgusting.to.the.bone. in your dishonesty, add to that as a topping your recent patronizing attitude. It makes me (and i guess many others) sick. So sick i almost want to puke.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This is exactly the type of position I have a problem with " So it's illegal to covet a slave, but not illegal to own a slave.  How fucked up is that? " It's fucked up if that's what's going on but it's not. It's illegal to covet a slave, and you shouldn't have certain types of slaves and there is no statements as to the illegality of owning a slave and no dictate that you should have slaves (aside from an instance of prisoners of war). As @Angrboda pointed out the jocular phrase (misquoted to God). "That which isn't forbidden is permitted", or it's German opposite "everything which is not allowed is forbidden" , is about general power of competence. I'm aware of the historical and societal slavery you reference. The fact that it existed far before the Bible should just be another reason the Bible isn't the source of slavery. 

I don't believe there is nearly enough to work with to claim "that isn't what's going on".  Here we have god, Jehova, or whatever you want to call it, giving his chosen people 10 (not 1000 or 100) laws to live by.  One would think that these must be the best of the best, the highest priority, the cream of the crop.  Not only does he waste 4 of them on basically the same rule (I'm god and you better not forget it), but when he finally gets to the concept of slavery, he doesn't say "don't do it", he just says don't be envious of your neighbors cool slaves.  That silence on slavery says a tremendous amount about the culture and society from whence it came because, you know, we all know this stuff really came from some high priest and not god almighty, so the priest put down the things he or his lot felt were the most critical things.  Honestly, I need no further evidence that man is the author of this religion and this book.  No god worth his salt would have wasted one of the 10 most important rules on envying slaves.  At least Odin would have said if you envy your neighbor because he has slaves, then just kill the bastard and take the slaves for yourself!  Now that's a god!

And I never suggested the Bible was the source for slavery; it existed almost everywhere in ancient times.  But you have to admit that many a Christian has used Biblical arguments to defend slavery.  That doesn't actually condemn the Bible, but it sure makes you wonder again, if an all powerful god didn't like slavery, why wouldn't he just say so.  Nope, just don't be envious; that's really bad for the soul.

And the Irony is this so-called God gave these commandments to a group of former slaves 

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not hard to understand or support any number of different christianities. I prefer those christianities which seek to repair the religion through reform. I prefer a christianity, for example, that disagrees with the plain contempt of women throughout magic book. That disagrees with gods taste for slaves and slaving, again throughout.

I'd suggest that you're not reading anything which disagrees with your personal and contemporary ethics the way I do, or even the way it was written, in magic book. That it doesn't start and end in leviticus. What else would a person who disagrees with magic book about slaves and women do? What else could they do, beyond the pure memory hole - which is evergreen.

There are tons of ways to accomplish whatever personal curation the religion might require for a given individual. None of them are true to the faith, but all are true to the faithful. My personal fave is a christianity that doesn't rely on magic book in any way. That doesn't chain itself to the superstitions of the authors or the politics of it's construction or the ethics of some past society. When confronted with silly shit in magic book, a person who holds such a christian faith can simply shrug their shoulders and say - yeah, it says alot of shit - and neither of us believes all of it.

It's a christianity with the benefit of being completely honest, without any requirement to tie ourselves into argumentative knots, this thread being a running demonstration of the futility of that latter approach to christian apologism.

[Mashmont]

tackattack made the very good point that the ‘PSA: Rape Apologetics’ is veering off topic. Since this goes against both the spirit and the letter of [Serious] threads, feel free to have that discussion here.

My answer: yup.

Boru

I can speak for the Catholic Church on this.  The Vatican came out very early, 1839, in its denunciation of colonial slavery like was prevalent at that time.  As usual, the RCC was ahead of the game, just like it is now on  abortion which, 100 years hence, will also be viewed as the barbaric practice it is.

As for women, the RCC elevates women.  Its seeks to surround women with protections, aka,  a loving husband and family, with the accompanying support financially and otherwise.
Contrast that with the current secular model which tells us women don't need marriage or men,  are free to have sex outside marriage,  and are better off poor single mothers bearing all the burden themselves.

[Deesse23]

Its seeks to surround women with protections

Why?

[Mashmont]

Its seeks to surround women with protections

Why?

Don't you think women and men should be protected?

[zwanzig]

Its seeks to surround women with protections

Why?

Don't you think women and men should be protected?

If you stack all these quotes together like this, you can see the goalposts move.

[Deesse23]

Why?

Don't you think women and men should be protected?

Can you answer a question without asking a question back?
Why should women be protected (by providing a husband, for example)?
Why should women be financially supported?