Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[Angrboda]

That which is not forbidden, is permitted.

- God

[Spongebob]

When I hear the question, does Christianity endorse slavery and/or misogyny, the first thing that occurs to me is what is the Christian philosophy and its documents based on? Why, it's based on a culture that was already thousands of years old and in that (and all other) culture women were subservient and slavery was an accepted practice, so of course any thinking from that era and culture is going to reflect those ethics. In a nutshell, yes Christianity is completely supportive of both even though later generations of Christians began to challenge both of these views as abhorrent (at least some people have). We even see the manipulation of Biblical translations that try to downplay the horrible nature of the text in a grand display of political correctness.

[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.

[Spongebob]

@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.

Hmmm, how's about responding to what I actually said instead of a context-free extraction, champ.

[The Grand Nudger]

-And that's how we lose the thread, Tack. First you contend that you do not see a thing..and then, breathlessly, transisition into exaltation of the very thing you just claimed not to see. Not here for it. Insult someone else, and insult yourself, on someone else's time. Meanwhile, magic book condones -no- abolishment of slavery. None. Zilch. Nada. If these are your criteria, it fails by your own criteria. It does endorse the shit you've been maintaining that it doesn;t, it does command the shit you've been claiming that it doesn't, ..and it doesnt do the modifying thing..already a concession, that you now insist.

That's you. You're doing that. Not magic book. Not the culture that wrote it. It's how you see it but not how they saw it or indeed how they wrote it. What it does, what they did, what's actually in it - all of your own failure conditions. -and yet.....we have to bicker as though we don't both read the same words in the same language, on the same page. I get that you want it to be better than it is. That's why I think that you're a decent person whereas Huggy, for example, is a piece of shit..but has a more true to text faith than you.

You argue it doesn't say what it does, he attempts to argue that what it manifestly and inarguably does say.... isn't bad. Think about it. I respect the difficulty of the position that contemporary christians find themselves in. Rock and a hard place. On the one hand, asserting the contents makes them an asshole to their peers -christian and otherwise-. On the other, failure to assert the contents makes them unfaithful compared to their christian peers who will and do.

That's why, I think, theism circles the sewer by default. Theres a demonstrable pressure to have the most garbage take in the room - for god. Taking the high road is negatively valued and faith denying, whereas going full on gutter trash is religiously pious but practically deleterious.

You end your request to another poster by asking for something substantive - as if it would matter. You're aware of the substance, and committed to denying it, and even your own awareness. He could bring more substance, you will do more of the same. Shameful - and pointless.

Christianity as an ideology inherently and explicitly supports both slavery and misogny - but you don't. You disagree with your own silly religion on this - which I think is a good thing..but it's clearly optional and extrabiblical.

---

You claim I endorsed slavery.


*emphasis mine*
Post the quote.

Go fuck yourself.  You said what you said, and the thread exists for anyone to read. This is just you being an asshole on top of being the piece of shit you already declared yourself to be.

[Huggy Bear]

Go fuck yourself.  You said what you said, and the thread exists for anyone to read.  This is just you being an asshole on top of being the piece of shit you already declared yourself to be.

Oh, so you can't find any quotes? Are bald faced liars that claim someone said something they never said, and continue to double down without providing any evidence, pieces of shit?

Someone help this delusional clown try and find a quote of where I "endorsed" slavery...

[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.

[Spongebob]

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.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh, so you can't find any quotes? Are bald faced liars that claim someone said something they never said, and continue to double down without providing any evidence, pieces of shit?

Someone help this delusional clown try and find a quote of where I "endorsed" slavery...

The only liar here is you Diaper boy and your little hatchet job at the hall of shame only compounds your shittiness.

---

-And that's how we lose the thread, Tack.  First you contend that you do not see a thing..and then, breathlessly, transisition into exaltation of the very thing you just claimed not to see.  Not here for it.  Insult someone else, and insult yourself, on someone else's time.  Meanwhile, magic book condones -no- abolishment of slavery.  None.  Zilch.  Nada.  If these are your criteria, it fails by your own criteria.  It does endorse the shit you've been maintaining that it doesn;t, it does command the shit you've been claiming that it doesn't, ..and it doesnt do the modifying thing..already a concession, that you now insist.  

That's you.  You're doing that.  Not magic book.  Not the culture that wrote it.  It's how you see it but not how they saw it or indeed how they wrote it.  What it does, what they did, what's actually in it - all of your own failure conditions.  -and yet.....we have to bicker as though we don't both read the same words in the same language, on the same page.  I get that you want it to be better than it is.  That's why I think that you're a decent person whereas Huggy, for example, is a piece of shit..but has a more true to text faith than you.  

You argue it doesn't say what it does, he attempts to argue that what it manifestly and inarguably does say.... isn't bad.  Think about it.  I respect the difficulty of the position that contemporary christians find themselves in.  Rock and a hard place.  On the one hand, asserting the contents makes them an asshole to their peers -christian and otherwise-.  On the other, failure to assert the contents makes them unfaithful compared to their christian peers who will and do.

That's why, I think, theism circles the sewer by default.  Theres a demonstrable pressure to have the most garbage take in the room - for god.  Taking the high road is negatively valued and faith denying, whereas going full on gutter trash is religiously pious but practically deleterious.

You end your request to another poster by asking for something substantive - as if it would matter.  You're aware of the substance, and committed to denying it, and even your own awareness.  He could bring more substance, you will do more of the same.  Shameful - and pointless.

Christianity as an ideology inherently and explicitly supports both slavery and misogny - but you don't.  You disagree with your own silly religion on this - which I think is a good thing..but it's clearly optional and extrabiblical.

---

You claim I endorsed slavery.


*emphasis mine*
Post the quote.

Go fuck yourself.  You said what you said, and the thread exists for anyone to read.  This is just you being an asshole on top of being the piece of shit you already declared yourself to be.

Now he's desperate enough to start shit-talking you in other threads 

https://atheistforums.org/thread-22972-p...pid2052642

[Angrboda]

We need a special thread, AF Motel, where fighting couples like Huggy and Nudger can go to resolve their differences and have makeup sex.