You downplay the (very numerous and politically powerful) Christian supporters of slavery, and emphasize the (not so very numerous, and - for a long time - politically less influential) critics of the practice.=.
You already ignored the context slavery took place within in (as well as what Christ did in the same eras slavery was present in not speaking against it) and in ignoring several others who also were influential in speaking against the system, it was a false scenario. Again, one needs to deal with the facts rather than going into things based on incomplete basis since there were ALWAYS numerous politically powerful Christians against slavery who dealt with it by transforming the system. That goes back to actually dealing with what Jesus said on the matter - and others who were also against abuses of slavery within Christianity have noted that same concept. By the logic you used, someone driving a car/killing others in a Honda is the equivalent of representing how Hondas were designed or representing all who loved Honda cars. It doesn't work - and likewise, when dealing with what Christianity actually advocated, one needs to address what early Christians actually said and did in line with Christ....not simply what people did in the NAME of Christ in the same way Pagans don't want people to assume a pagan chopping up/eating another means that it represents how all Pagans were.
Likewise, you do not seem to acknowledge that legally speaking, slaves were MUCH better off in pagan Rome than in the first millennium of Christianity's uncontested supremacy, and that the practice only disappeared because serfdom was more economically feasible.
Slaves were never better off in Pagan Rome - this is what was already noted with the ignoring what happened in Byzantime Empire and how slaves were treated vastly better alongside other groups than in pagan Rome. One cannot change the facts on that because it disagrees with their leaning - and of course, we can also deal with where Christians were treated viciously within the first couple of centuries of Rome's Development within the Pagan world...but of course, you minimized that in argument while speaking.
Speaking in circular terms with "Serfdom was more economically feasible is why slavery disappeared" doesn't deal with the historical facts of where both Pagan emperors/generals noted that Christians were changing the minds of the populace with how they drastically treated slaves better than their pagan counterparts. Even the Emperors noted that.
And the same issue also goes for transforming the world LATER even when it wasn't noted openly by the Emperors of Rome (before its Twighlight days and division between the Eastern Empire and Western Empire). We again have to deal squarely with what occurred with St. Patrick - which even secular/pagan historians have noted hosestly.
Had he never been kidnapped, it seems quite likely that it would have been decades, probably centuries, before Ireland was converted. It certainly would not have been in a position to save civilization, w hen the Roman Empire crumbled and literacy was lostlost, that is, by all but the Irish monasteries planted by Patrick and his successors. These holy men salvaged everything possible from the destruction of the Roman Empire. While Germanic tribes were wreaking havoc all over the Roman Empire, Monk Scribes were copying texts, scriptural and classical teachings of classical Western civilization in Ireland. Without this work, many ancient documents, and much that accompanies literacy, might have been lost forever. When the Middle Ages ended and the Renaissance begin as a result of renewed interested in ancient texts, that was only possible because of the work of the Irish Scribes.
lt was Patrick's Irish disciples Columcille (Columba) and Aidan who spread the manuscript-loving Irish monasteries into 6th and 7th C Scotland and England, and, subsequently, their Irish followers in turn started the monasteries in Europe from which sprang the university towns with their varied monastic orders. Seeing that I love monks/studying them and had that as one reason for choosing St. Patrick, what floored me was that the Irish monks went back into the places that fell into chaos after the Fall of Rome gathered as many books/ancient sources of literature/language and brought them back to Ireland so they could document them. They were hungry for knowledge since Ireland never had any of that and in doing so, they kept knowledge alive when it was lost. In a world where there were no longer libraries maintained, they copied the books, learning and other sources and gave them back later.
In many ways, they were first ones to deal with dynamics similar to Google
There are other examples besides this - especially as it concerns th unknown scribes of the 8th and 9th centuries - but they cannot be minimized if dealing honestly with history for what it was.
I'm not saying that there weren't Christian abolitionists, especially at a later point in history.
What I'm saying is that CHRISTIANITY on the whole did not contribute all that much to social progress - only a few radical liberals within the faith did. Retroactively defining them as the only True Christians strikes me as somewhat disingenious.
It was never in a later point in history where there were Christian abolitionists - and this is again, why it was noted that you minimized where there already were Christians abolitionists within the first 4 centuries of the Church developed - and claiming Christianity on a whole did not contribute to social progress doesn't deal in the slightest with where Christianity actually did just that (from hospitals to treatment of widows/orphans and children, ending cannabalism/creating homes, etc.). One can choose to ignore it - but it's just that - a choice to ignore. And it's disingenious to do so.
Subtle social change is all nice and well, especially when you are NOT in a position of power. Living an ideal is still the most powerful and sustainable form of effecting change.
Subtle social change doesn't just go for when you're in power - and again, that goes back to addressing the ways that there were ALWAYS two forms of Christianity ...Imperialistic/Political Christianity and the Christianity Christ advocated. Trying to do as you did with making claims on others from an Imperialistic perspective while ignoring other Christians (in large groups) who were NOT for that and actually consistent with CHrist isn't the same as dealing with Christianity for what it is.
YET - if your world view becomes the virtually uncontested dominant ideology, and yet a particular dubious practice grows WORSE under these circumstances - that's actually pretty damning.
Not really - seeing that the same logic you used wasn't really applied by yourself to your own belief system and thus it is a bit disingenious since there were already EXTENSIVE times where social evils grew WORSE under Paganism (no matter how much one runs from that) but no one claims (if Pagan) that it damms your religion. The same logic is consistent with Christianity - and as it is, neither Christ nor the APostles ever went about seeking to make the world be dominante d by them or seeking to change all social evils.
I'd also say that speaking in terms of Scriptual support, the supporters of slavery have *still* a stronger case going for them than the abolitionists ever did. Mosaic law very clearly approves of slavery, Jesus never said a word against it, and Paul wrote from an eschatological position that saw the End of the World just around the corner
This is where knowing what the scriptures actually say rather than speaking in generalities (and sweeping ones at that) is beneficial - seeing that the OT had Moses speak on slavery in clear terms that differed starkly with the culture around him.
As noted
best elsewhere, We know that all of the landed property belonged to Israelites ( Lev. 25:2324) - and that the Gentiles present were largely day laborers and artisans (Deut. 24: 1415, Deuteronomy 29:10) - showing them to be those who were dependent (Ex. 23:12) and the Decalogue referred to them as "your stranger" ( Ex. 20:10, Deut. 5:14), showing how they were not equals in society according to Mosaic Code. It was because of the vulnerability foreigners had that the Israelites were reminded of how the Lord had concern for the weak (Ex. 22:2122 and Deut. 10:1719) and were not to harm them (Ex. 22:20) or abuse them (Deut. 24:14) - and in regards to the law and justice, they were to receive equal treatment before the law (Deut. 1:16, Deuteronomy 24:17-19) - the entire context of having "one standard for stranger and citizen alike" (Lev. 24:22).
And the special treatment of them was done in light of the background the Hebrews had coming out of Egypt themselves as foreigners (Lev. 19:34, Deut. 10:19) - and this was to be done for all.
And one needs to be honest since Christ supporting the OT also supported those scriptures that were already AGAINST slavery even in the OT...especially kidnapping - as seen in Exodus 21:15-17 when it notes plainly "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death"....the entire account of the Exodus was founded directly on the issue of not doing what happened in New World slavery with kidnapping others/not treating them properly - and with the ways slavery occurred within the OT, it was indentured servitude rather than oppressive abuse that happened within Rome.
This is what the Abolitionists actually spoke on when it came to the slavery they saw - it would be ideal to remove slavery entirely....but it was not something people had to have removed in order to reflect what Christ was about (he himself coming from oppressed people in a system where they didn't have many options).
) - following many arguments here over the years, it's not hard to see many cases where it's clear that people don't really care to address the issues consistently. But thankfully, as has also occurred, not every one does the things you were noting and we don't share being unaware of when things can be avoided. We do so in faithfulness to the facts (and knowing how others read who don't always comment openly) - for me, it'll always go back to I Peter 3:15-17 with being ready for an answer.....regardless of what others chose to do.
