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.