Misconceptions

[Jane_the_Bane]

The Bible also says one should treat his slave well. Pagans screwed up the system. Therefore, the law.

Even a well-treated* slave is still a slave, and thus victim of an abhorrent system where people are treated as property.
Also, pagan Rome, despite all its faults, treated slaves better than Christianized Rome, where many reforms and rights that had bettered their lot were taken back.
The bishops of Rome were among the wealthiest slave owners in late antiquity.

* "well-treated" includes being beaten and abused severely, as long as they are back on their feet within three days. Nice "system" you have there!

 

[juvenissun]

People do not tend to refrain from stealing because there's a law against it.

Many people do. Particularly if we replace the stealing by robbing.

 

[juvenissun]

Even a well-treated* slave is still a slave, and thus victim of an abhorrent system where people are treated as property.

A well treated slave is a happy slave, not a victim.

 

[awitch]

A well treated slave is a happy slave, not a victim.

Wanna be my slave? I promise when I beat you that you'll be back on your feet in only one and a half days.

 

[juvenissun]

Wanna be my slave? I promise when I beat you that you'll be back on your feet in only one and a half days.

I will not want to be a slave unless I have to. Just like I don't want to be a burger flipper.
If I have to be a slave, I will not trust you, since you have no absolute standard on anything.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Mafia or other criminal groups have a strong in-group/out-group ethos: outsiders are "not us", and thus fair game for unscrupulous behaviour, insiders who turn on them are vile traitors and thus even less deserving of humane treatment. It's a clear social dynamic guided by specific principles.(Many organized crime groups are devout Christians, by the way. Mexican drug cartels even venerate specific saints. )

You are being disingenuous here.
Strong in-group, out-group dynamics are common such as between Sports Teams, Schools or Universities. To blame lapses in morality upon it or to use it as justification therefore is not an Absolute. Criminals will reinforce such dynamics with violent acts as they are already violent criminals, but that does not mean that these dynamics are the casus belli for the violence. A friendly rivalry between sport teams or rioting between them can both occur, but this is on account of the fans' underlying morality and not on the strength of group dynamics.

Also Mexican drug cartels mostly don't venerate Christian saints of the Church or tradition, but Sancta Muerte, Jesus Malverde, Maximon etc. which are of highly syncretic and morally ambiguous folk religion. These are more akin to Pagan deities than to Saints and are disavowed and frowned upon by the Church.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As to Slavery, who were the most vociferous abolitionists? Devout Christians.
We first see this in the Middle Ages where the Christian Church was instrumental in the shift from slave-based Latifundia to the slightly better serfdom of the demesne.

New England's Protestant Churches, the Catholic Church, the Church of England, the Scottish Kirk and Welsh Dissenters are to blame for ending the slave trade and bringing about eventual emancipation in the 19th century.
It is true that many of slavery's supporters were also Christian, but not universally so and many harsh practices of slavery had been condemned by churchmen for centuries.
The deist and agnostic traditions of their time mostly stood by the sidelines. Voltaire and Rousseau for instance, while opposing slavery, were very lukewarm towards its abolition. The deist Jefferson said all men are created equal while siring children on his female slaves, but it was firebrand preaching in pulpits which finally put an end to it.

Who resurrected the practice in the early to mid 20th century in Europe? Secular Nazism and Atheistic Communism.

 

[awitch]

As to Slavery, who were the most vociferous abolitionists? Devout Christians.

They were also slavery's biggest defenders (in the US)

 

[LoAmmi]

I will not want to be a slave unless I have to. Just like I don't want to be a burger flipper.
If I have to be a slave, I will not trust you, since you have no absolute standard on anything.

I have to say, I find you to be a very scary individual. If you lost your faith, would you go around raping, murdering, and robbing people? Laws against those things predate the giving of the Torah, even if we take the Bible 100% literal. It isn't like it was a free-for-all prior. Even Moses ran from Egypt after killing a task master out of anger. That would be before Moses was a prophet.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

They were also slavery's biggest defenders (in the US)

I mentioned that Christians also supported slavery. Its defenders were however not universally Christian nor was Christianity its strongest defender, which was on economic and racial grounds. Slavery's main opposition and strongest opponents however were Christians.

 

[awitch]

I will not want to be a slave unless I have to. Just like I don't want to be a burger flipper.
If I have to be a slave, I will not trust you, since you have no absolute standard on anything.

HA! You think slaves had a choice? At least as a burger flipper you get a salary and workers' rights.

A white guy attaches shackles a black guy.
White guy: "Alright get on the boat, we're sending you to the other side of the world as a slave.
Black guy: "Um...I'd really rather stay here."
White guy: "Really?"
Black guy: "Yeah, my family is here and everything..."
White guy: "Look, I promise they won't beat you too badly. You might need like 2-3 days to recover tops"
Black guy: "No, I got responsibilities here..."
White guy: "Oh, please? What else are you going to do, flip burgers?"
Black guy: "I think I'd rather stay"
White guy: "Oh, fine" and removes the shackles.
White guy: "Next in line!"

 

[juvenissun]

I have to say, I find you to be a very scary individual. If you lost your faith, would you go around raping, murdering, and robbing people? Laws against those things predate the giving of the Torah, even if we take the Bible 100% literal. It isn't like it was a free-for-all prior. Even Moses ran from Egypt after killing a task master out of anger. That would be before Moses was a prophet.

Possible, if I need to do those things and if I can get away from doing it. Without having a standard set by God, anything can be justified. That is human being. I am not any scarier than anybody else.

 

[awitch]

I mentioned that Christians also supported slavery. Its defenders were however not universally Christian nor was Christianity its strongest defender, which was on economic and racial grounds. Slavery's main opposition and strongest opponents however were Christians.

But Christian abolitionists didn't act on what the Bible said; they acted in spite of what the Bible said. Those passages about how to treat slaves are still in there and still imply slavery is sanctioned by your god.

 

[Zoness]

If so, ask, or don't reply.

So all I'm gathering is, the Bible is the only thing holding you back from being a terrible person. Well good thing the Bible exists then! We can't afford to have rampaging christians.

I, on the other hand, adhere to the wiccan rede and believe in not being an awful person not because a god scares me into it but because I know it's the right thing to do.

 

[Zoness]

But Christian abolitionists didn't act on what the Bible said; they acted in spite of what the Bible said. Those passages about how to treat slaves are still in there and still imply slavery is sanctioned by your god.

In fact, the Bible was used regularly as a defense of Slavery as slavery was part of the "natural law and order ordained by God". In fact, the fact that Jesus doesn't specifically forbid it in his own words was regarded as tacit approval to continue doing it. That's the argument that southern preachers made, at least.

 

[awitch]

I, on the other hand, adhere to the wiccan rede and believe in not being an awful person not because a god scares me into it but because I know it's the right thing to do.

It was probably a Pagan who put that "So be good for goodness sake" lyric in the Santa Clause is Coming to Town song. #WarOnChristmas

 

[Zoness]

It was probably a Pagan who put that "So be good for goodness sake" lyric in the Santa Clause is Coming to Town song. #WarOnChristmas

Good, good. Our war on Christmas is almost done! Soon nobody will be buying gifts and spreading good cheer in the winter months!!

Wait....

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

But Christian abolitionists didn't act on what the Bible said; they acted in spite of what the Bible said. Those passages about how to treat slaves are still in there and still imply slavery is sanctioned by your god.

Sorry, that is a misconception, so fits this thread actually.

Even in the middle ages those passages were seen as merely a way to order the fallen world, not that slavery was somehow acceptable. It is a symptom of the fall from grace, which now that it exists, it might as well be regulated. It is why the Mediaeval Church was strongly in opposition and was instrumental in Serfdom replacing it or why the Church opposed the extension of slavery to the New World. The idea that slavery is acceptable therefore is a very modern one, from about the mid 18th till mid-19th and only amongst those in slave-owning societies threatened by the vociferous Bible-clutching abolitionists. They attempted to undercut the old understanding of the Bible to support their pre-held views.

The Bible also has passages on divorce and adultery, do you honestly think it sanctions them? Because Jesus says we should not cast the first stone at the adulteress, that Adultery is thus sanctioned?
I realise you are a neo-pagan, but this view is laughable.

Still, the non-Christians did precious little to end slavery, so regardless, we have Christianity to blame for Abolition and not some moral growth independant of it.

 

[awitch]

I agree. Condoned means to allow with reluctance; sanctioned means to command or approve of. The Bible never sanctions Slavery, but condones it, as I said.

Similar with divorce in the OT, condoned yet not considered acceptable. Or in the New, Jesus does not condemn the woman caught in Adultery, but tells her to sin no more.

But if god is omniscient and omnipotent then it was god's full intention to allow slavery, with a few restrictions so I don't see how god could have been reluctant at all about it. There was absolutely nothing stopping god from adding an 11th commandment that says Thou Shalt Not Keep Slaves. And don't tell me there wasn't enough room on Moses's tablet.

If everything is controlled by an all powerful god, and god included slavery, then it is still sanctioned.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

But if god is omniscient and omnipotent then it was god's full intention to allow slavery, with a few restrictions so I don't see how god could have been reluctant at all about it. There was absolutely nothing stopping god from adding an 11th commandment that says Thou Shalt Not Keep Slaves. And don't tell me there wasn't enough room on Moses's tablet.

If everything is controlled by an all powerful god, and god included slavery, then it is still sanctioned.

Nope.

This is assuming determinism. Did God sanction Sin then? Sanctioned sin cannot in fact be sin, this is a contradiction.
Slavery was a side effect of free will (via the Fall), which God in his majesty decided to gift us with, for whichever reason. God knew it would happen, but did not sanction it as such.

Regardless, Abolition is on account of Christianity, not in spite of.