Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[tackattack]

---

First things first, seeing how your whole argument is based on me "endorsing" slavery, provide a quote of where I "endorsed" it.

My argument doesn't have anything to do with you being a slavery endorsing nutter - you've got the order of dependence backwards.

You are a slavery endorsing nutter because of the deep and genuine belief in a christian religion you hold.  My first response in thread:

It certainly is, all but ensuring that some very committed people end up saying abhorrent things for no reason beyond their genuinely held faith. Things they personally struggle with, but feel compelled to accept nevertheless.

Small number. Like any christian thing, the vast majority ignore the vast majority of things. That's one of the religions pros, incidentally. Nobody wants christians acting too christian in the real world, especially christians.

-you're a member of that small number, apparently.  Here's to hoping it doesn't grow larger.

@tackattack  Paul labeled himself an asshole, I merely noticed it.  You're only telling me that you can't imagine how paul could be paul as paul tells it.  I can clear that up for you.  People are full of contradictions.  Even people who only exist as literary devices.  You, as an actual person with contemporary ethics, probably know when to disagree with paul the man or paul the literary device.  We will not be discussing any doomed objections about contempt not being contempt, or you not having eyes to see contempt.  As I mentioned before, the authors of all of magic book believed shit you don't.  Let;s not insults ourselves, each other, or the members of this board by pretending otherwise.  Which of these pauls do you follow?

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

-Also Paul

As in all the congregations of the Lord's people. Women should remain silent in the churches, They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

-Also Paul.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

-Also Paul

Allow me to suggest that christianity is as inherently misogynistic as any plain reading of the text manifestly demonstrates it to be.  Still.... you, as a contemporary christian, may omit or prioritize one aspect over another - but we can be clear about what we're doing in that event.  Applying our contemporary ethics to repair that fault in magic book, repair the god of magic book.    I don't expect you to shrug your shoulders and say "well, god said to take all the virgin girls and paul said that a bitch should be quiet - so I guess that's how things are and should be!".

As a sidenote - because you might find this interesting - it's entirely certain that the quote you chose to focus on was a re-expression of the ancient isrealite concept of why they personally couldn't be enslaved.  They were all already slaves, equally, before god- and thus could not be purchased by another.  Christian society would go on to become a slaving society contemptuous of women, for entirely predictable reasons.  We have our model minority, they had their model slave.  We have our impossible standard, they had their female possessions.

Broadly speaking, christianity is inherently contemptuous of life - for thematic reasons - so it hardly makes sense to split hairs over which color or sex.  People are broken and the world is fallen.


-Further, because I cannot stand to see this keep getting floated.

If the Bible doesn't prescribe people to buy slaves and it does prohibit some instances of slavery and talks about when to free slaves, then it does not support/endorse slavery, IMO.

It tells them to go out and capture them by force, and it tells them where they can buy them, and it tells them how to turn even the marginally protected in-group into them.  The people commanded to go get slaves did not simply "find themselves owning slaves".  A person who exploits the progeny exception is breeding..not finding, slaves.  A trader going out to a foreign country to purchase human beings didn't just wake up and say "holy shit, look at all these people that found their way into my pocket!".  The idea that it tells anyone to free any slaves is a figment of a contemporary readers imagination.

Since it does those things you specifically mention, there must be some other criteria which you've decided the issue by.

---

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.

---

That's why I put it in hide tags. Sorry if bringing context and a thorough exegesis ruffled you the wrong way. If you fully admit that no one says that God should have slaves, then you're being disingenuous to ask. If you're freely admitting that the Bible does not ask people to own slaves then you already have your answer as to what this says and I agree with it. 

I am not dishonest. You are if you suggest i ever said that your god commanded the israelites to have some slves (in case the already didnt). Stop making that insinuation or provide a quote.
I am just asking you what the bible claims your god is trying to say with the verses i presented multiple times now. I grant you all the context you need,

To be succinct the verses here are pretty simply if you have slaves do XYZ in their treatment, and if you buy slaves buy them from Tommy across down. 

Ok, here we finally go. Your god tells people "how to do slavery", right? But he doesnt even tell them "IF you buy them from Tommy across", he tells them to DO buy them from Tommy across", right?

Leviticus 25: 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.

Ye "shall" buy them from Tommy across, right?

If the Bible doesn't prescribe people to buy slaves and it does prohibit some instances of slavery and talks about when to free slaves, then it does not support/endorse slavery, IMO.

Just listen to yourself speaking: IF the bible prohibits SOME instances of slavery..., then it does not support slavery. Are.you.serious.!?
Let me ask you: IF the bible prohibits SOME instances of slavery, then it does NOT prohibit some OTHER instances of slavery, right?
THE BIBLE DOES NOT PROHIBIT SOME INSTANCES OF SLAVERY, according to your own words. (No it does tell HOW to do it in those instances).
Question: 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?

You are still trying to weasel out of the fact, that the bible, while not TELLING people to enslave (nice strawman btw 1/10 for trying), while (maybe) not endorsing SOME instances of slavery (nice try 2/10 maybe for effort), it does endorse SOME instancs of slavery.

Do you consider it morally permissible to endorse SOME instances of slavery?

It may be prescriptive on what to do if you find yourself owning slaves (or prisoners of war or those slave's kids) and how to treat them, but the Bible prescribes all sorts of behaviors on how to treat people. That's kind of what it does.

Are.you.serious.again?
Is your argument really "Hey, the bible tells people HOW to enslave, but it tells them HOW to do other stuff as well."
Oh, and how do you "find yourself owning slaves"? Is this stuff happening accidentally, or as a minor "byproduct" of some other activity?

---

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.


@Spongebob A blanket generalization such as "Christianity completely supportive of both" is a positive claim and a hasty generalization you're going to have to support. Feel free to jump in though with something more substantive.