Nope.There certainly were Christian abolitionists, but their position was in direct conflict with what God in the Bible said about slavery, not in line with it.
Upvote
0
Nope.There certainly were Christian abolitionists, but their position was in direct conflict with what God in the Bible said about slavery, not in line with it.
I was editing my previous post while you were creating your detailed response, so you may have missed another question I added.Nope.
Are you a "red-letter" Christian? Do you believe only what third-parties report as the specific words of Jesus (since Jesus didn't write any of the scriptures Himself) count for Christian living?I was editing my previous post while you were creating your detailed response, so you may have missed another question I added.
You said it was common knowledge by the 1800s that slavery was a sin in the eyes of Christ. Putting aside where the vast majority of pro-slavery people in America were Christian, I ask where does Christ say that? Where does he oppose what God the Father said about slavery? The only mention of slavery Jesus makes is in an analogy where he talks about how it's necessary slaves get lashes even if they don't know what they did was wrong.
It still is, nothing has changed, today there are 50 million people enslaved all over the world including the U.S. around 400,000 each year.You do know that slavery existed all over the world in every race and tribe? Slavery was as normal as breathing. The strong enslaved the weak. Businesses were made profitable from selling people among all the other regular goods. The slave trade was very lucrative for African kings. For the Colonists coming over to the new land slaves were plentiful and cheap to buy on the African coasts.
Why slaves? The question was why not? Why would they not use slaves when it was viewd as normal and made them gretaer profits? The same reason why later they moved to machines, because machinery worked even better than humans. It made them greater profits and like most things profit was the end goal. It was machinery that made much of slavery obsolete. Did some people cry out against slavery? Of course, but nobody listened to them, why would they? Does anyone listen to us as we cry out that society is rife with immorality, nope. They laugh and tell us to 'get with it'.
Now if you don't know history and think that slavery was something unique to the Americas, unique to Africans, then this how false narratives and hate begins. This is how an us vs them mentality is brewed. When you understand that Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Asians enslaved other Asians, Africans enslaved other Africans and Native people enslaved other Native peoples. That it was later due to the ease of buying slaves in markets and the advancement of large ships that allowed for cross race slavery; then you understand what slavery really was and how cultures can find sin not only normal but good.
Today people are slaves to immorality and think debauchery is completely normal, that books on inappropriate contentography are fine in school libraries without the harm being seen or understood. Hopefully in a hundred years this will all be a bad dream and people can point back and talk about horrible it was and why was it allowed?
It still is, nothing has changed, today there are 50 million people enslaved all over the world including the U.S. around 400,000 each year.
A quarter of 50mil are children.
People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.
Slavery is alive and well, I'm not sure what you thought I meant. That wasn't it.It's inane to say "nothing has changed."
It would not be underground. The number of people enslaved would be in the billions if "nothing had changed."
Slavery is alive and well, I'm not sure what you thought I meant. That wasn't it.
So there's no problem with 50 Million enslaved?
Nothing has changed slavery is still going on is that better?I really dislike rush-to-absurdity responses that one frequently gets on the Internet. Doing that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
You said "nothing has changed."
You are wrong. You can modify your statement or just continue saying absurd things.
People like to exploit others. That is why I was self-employed. I am not going to work to put money in the pocket of someone that does not want to work.America was borne of evil. As Americans we may not want to admit it, but this nation of ours was founded and built on the blood of countless victims.
To be fair a lot of the precepts of slavery have evolved into the prison population in America.It's inane to say "nothing has changed."
It would not be underground. The number of people enslaved would be in the billions if "nothing had changed."
To be fair, nobody is born in prison a convict. You diminish the horror of a nation having a culture of slavery.To be fair a lot of the precepts of slavery have evolved into the prison population in America.
I’m not saying they are the same. I thought that that would be clear from what I wrote. Apologies for any confusion.To be fair, nobody is born in prison a convict. You diminish the horror of a nation having a culture of slavery.
In biblical slavery, one could only hold a Jew in slavery for seven years, but non-Jews were permanent property. And if, during that seven years, you "gave" that slave a wife, that wife and any children remained your slave when the Jewish slave was set free. In other words, if a Jew was born a slave, he remained a slave.People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.
Are you a Marcionist? That's the only explanation for why you might think God the Son disagrees with the God the Father on slavery.Are you a "red-letter" Christian? Do you believe only what third-parties report as the specific words of Jesus (since Jesus didn't write any of the scriptures Himself) count for Christian living?
I've provided that answer before in these forums, but the answer doesn't appeal to red-letter Christians.
Are you a Marcionist? That's the only explanation for why you might think God the Son disagrees with the God the Father on slavery.
It is pretty obvious that the Red letters are the words of Jesus. We only need the words of Jesus and the Torah from Moses. No one else adds anything, they just help explain what we learn from Moses and Jesus. David, for example, does not add to what we receive from Moses. But He helps us to understand.Do you believe only what third-parties report as the specific words of Jesus
Some people would say that Moses does not permit slavery, he gives them rights. .This was back in a time when if people were not "sold" into slavery there is a good chance they would starve to death. Women had to decide if they wanted to marry a poor man for love or a rich many for his money, so he would provide for her.Yes, the Mosaic Law permitted
Any optional component was on the slaveowner's side. Paul absolutely could say "Don't purchase slaves from neighboring nations." and "Release those slaves that you've bred."Paul speaks of slavery as though it had an optional component. That was possible for debt bondage. It was not possible for chattel slavery. Paul could say, "Don't go into debt." Paul could not say, "Don't be kidnapped."
This comes from Paul, who is not God. Jesus' only words on slavery spoke about how it is right to beat a slave form something they didn't know was wrong.We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers ;and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine -- 1 Timothy 1
Thus, the slave trade of kidnapping is made illegal within the Body of Christ. Going into debt is permitted but counseled against.
Again vague and utterly empty platitudes versus the specifics of God the Father, who said if you beat a slave with a rod and that slave doesn't die the same day (which, if you've never seen some die over several days, is complete agony) that there is NO punishment because the slave is the slaveowner's property. He also said if a man's carelessness causes him to accidentally kill another man's child, the first man pays with his life. If a man's carelessness causes a man to accidentally kill another man's slave, he just has to pay a fine because their not on the same level as regular people.And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. -- Ephesians 6
To a Christian who had slaves this verse is a jaw dropper. It changes everything.
I'm sure when the slaves were chained, beaten, (for the women) forced to have relations with a man she was sold to or one of his sons, the idea of it being symbolic of being enslaved to the Lord didn't come up a whole lot.If the slave owner considered the slave his personal property, this verse creates a different relationship. Both persons are actually the slaves of the Lord. That makes the "slave" no longer the property of the "master," but his responsibility under the one who is the Master of both of them--for the Master sees no existential difference between them--they are both His property, both bought for a price.
Yes, because Paul had become friends with Onesimus. At no point in the letter did Paul denounce the practice of slavery, but said to Philemon how helpful Onesimus had been to Paul.Now, to Paul's letter to Philemon. The first question to ask: What is the purpose of this letter? Latter apologists for slavery and those who wish to accuse Christianity of condoning slavery both claim the letter is nothing more than a plea from Paul for Philemon merely to be nice to Onesimus.
That's assuming the letter was even real and not just a story. But assuming that it was real, we have all sorts of correspondence saved throughout history of all tones and stripes. After the U.S. Civil War, the once owner of former slave Jourdon Anderson sent a letter to Mr. Anderson asking him to come back to work on his farm. Jourdon's written response, which slyly yet politely declined the offer (and asked for back wages from when he was a slave) still exists and is in the Smithsonian. So, we can attest from actual history that letters may be saved even if the person's response declines the initial request, and even if the letter is hostile to the person who received the letter.One would have to explain, though, why a mere "be nice" letter would have been cherished, preserved, copied, and shared among the early Christians and eventually considered of such significant doctrinal importance to have been included as part of the Canon.
Agreed, which backs my assertion that this letter isn't a denouncement of slavery at all, but asking a favor for a friend.that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains....I am sending him who is my very heart back to you.
Translation: I consider Onesimus my own son--which is about the most important familial relationship possible in this society. Men value their sons more than they value their wives. Just want you to know how serious this is to me.
As I noted above, does Paul at any point say no one should be a slave? He's asking for a special favor for Onesimus.Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
Translation: What part of "no longer as a slave" is hard to understand? "No longer as a slave" does not mean "be nice to him as a slave." "No longer as a slave" actually means "no longer as a slave."
You're assuming things not in evidence. He's saying if he is a debt slaver Paul would pay that debt. Also, where does it say that Onesimus was a Christian. He very well could have been a foreigner purchased from a neighboring nation (as God allowed). If someone were willing to twist words just as slavery apologists often do, it could be argued (albeit without evidence) that when Paul said he became a father to Onesimus that he converted him, and thus was not a Christian prior to his enslavement.If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.
Translation: He was a slave because of a debt he owed you (which is the only bondage we allow among Christians)--so put that debt on my tab. That makes him free.