Before I address the points you've made, Wayne, and point out the errors in them, I'd like to point out that you're way off base here, and getting further off the more you go. The principle issue we're addressing is whether or not the Bible is a pro-slavery document. In order to make your case that it is not, you are going to have to actually address its content, something you've barely even attempted to do. So it doesn't matter how much you talk about your own personal views and try to retrofit them on to the Bible; we have the evidence, in plain black and white, that the Bible is in favour of slavery. Because nobody who actually believes that slavery is a bad thing is going to set down in writing permission and approval to capture, keep, buy, sell, punish and inherit slaves.
If you want even a hope of winning this argument (think of the poor impressionable people who may read this thread!) you're going to have to actually address the facts. Avoiding them, as you are doing, plays into our hands and makes it look like you have nothing to say so you try to change the topic.
You can start by addressing the points made by Pastor Warren. You certainly seemed confident at first, saying that he was hopelessly wrong and misguided; but when asked to explain yourself, you seem to have nothing to say.
Also:
you still didn't answer my question: what would it mean to you if it turned out that God Himself was in fact in favour of slavery as an institution, and the slaveowners throughout history, from the Biblical to the antebellum South, were correct about God's will? Would that be a problem for you?
I think we know what the answer is, and why you don't want to give it.
You are correct in saying that Christianity was rarely outspoken on this, but then nobody else was outspoken at all... so by comparison Christianity was very outspoken
That's a pretty weak argument! So when Group A is pro-slavery, Group B is also pro-slavery but 1% of Group B thinks differently...that means Group B is anti-slavery?
And as we shall seet, you even contradict yourself in the next statement.
Most Christians were fine with slavery is true, I haven't said otherwise have I?
Only a line ago, when you said "by comparison Christianity was very outspoken." One offbeat writer doesn't really amount to anything, I'm afraid, especially when he's speaking directly against the Bible itself.
Slavery or non-slavery is irrelevant to the Kingdom of God - these are worldly ways and we are to be IN the world, but not OF the world. In other words we live with what the world offers, but don't perpetuate worldly things.
Except this goes directly against the Bible, which speaks in favour of slavery in both the Old and New Testaments.
It is no coincidence that the Roman Empire began to outlaw slavery after Christianity became its dominant religion. Whether there is a cause and effect is not clear, but I think it would be harder to make a case that Christianity had no impact whatsoever (read Tom Holland's Dominion for example).
Is it really no coincidence? Because that seems to be
exactly what it is. And have you noticed how you seem to have a habit of contradicting yourself every other line? "It is no coincidence," you say, and then carry on to say: "whether there is a cause and effect is not clear."
Gregory is not going to quote scripture to dismantle slavery as an institution because no scripture says that.
Well, exactly. That's because the Bible has a certain amount to say about slavery, and almost all in favour of it.
What it does say however is to follow Christ in laying down your life for your brother (or sister). Where that happens the immoral institutions begin to crumble. Where it doesn't happen, Christianity (or certain people in it) shore it up.
It's clear that you're just reading the parts of my responses that you want to and ignoring the rest. I already addressed this point. It's clear that the definition of "goodness" given in the Bible includes keeping slaves. You yourself, in a a fine display of trying-to-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too, have attempted to argue that slavery was permissible in the Bible because it was much more lenient than other forms of slavery (and we had to point out to you that it wasn't).
So the gradual change that occurred because Christians were encouraged to see every person as having some worth, some value, even the ones that did not join the church. Bit by bit it chipped at the foundations of slavery and bit by bit it succeeded in making people wonder if they needed it. That Gregory could say the things he did when he did is testament to the changes that had been wrought on society. Had he said them even 100 years earlier, he likely would have been sent to the lions or executed in some horrible way.
Maybe, or maybe not. You seem to have a very shallow grasp of history. This is nothing to be ashamed of, of course, but it is a definite disadvantage when trying to argue historical developments.
So simply by saying what he said he was bucking the trend and it is clear that this is the start of a new trend: As Christianity became more dominant, slavery became less desirable.
I really think you need to read some history on the course of slavery. You might learn some interesting things. For example, did you know that slavery continued in a number of forms throughout Christendom during the middle ages? And that even where slavery did die away, it was replaced by serfdom, essentially the same thing by a different name. You may be aware that a number of Popes and leading Church figures did make pronouncements against slavery, but there were also many who spoke in favour of it. And of course when slavery was formally re-established on racial lines it was done so entirely by Christians, and sometimes with the Church's blessing. Your narrative of "Christians good, slavery bad, therefore Christians against slavery" is simplistic and misleading, and not at all borne out by a study of history.
Augustine of Hippo was the most influential early medieval theologian (not a good thing in my opinion) and he points out that slavery is inevitable, but it was a consequence of the fall of man. Even in his theology, then, slavery was worldly and not something for a Christian.
Can I remind you that the Bible was a pro-slavery document, and that this is the point your supposed to be trying to disprove?
It goes on, once they were in a position to influence the world directly they did so. Without Christians pursuing this avenue would slavery have continued? I think so, ergo Christianity led to the end of the slave trade in Roman times and eventually to the class system that replaced (nominally) free serfs with slaves.
Basically, your whole argument amounts to your own personal viewpoint. Your post is full of "it seems to me's" and "I think so's" and "surely this must mean's". In other words, you're just making all of this up. Talk about bias!
Christians in the Roman Empire that had slaves were told unequivocally to treat their slaves fairly and justly, i.e. like every other human being that the owner had contact with. Warren's views don't reflect that at all.
What makes you think that? Of course Warren was in favour of slaves being treated justly. Taking his cue from the Bible, he saw slavery as a harmonious relationship, based on clear Biblical precedent and example, in which some people served others. To Warren, as to Paul and Jesus and others in the Bible, there was no contradiction between being a fair and just person and owning slaves.
