Christians already have to convince themselves of that. At least once it’s brought to their attention. It’s not exactly something that gets brought up during your typical Sunday School session.
Comment on Anon does some genealogy
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week agoKinda mad that if you click on his links, he’s citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it’s clearly talking about servants as a blessing. Not necessarily slaves. The words in question are עֶ֫בֶד and שִׁפְחָה. Basically every other translation I flipped through rendered this as servants, including the likes of culturally significant ones that Christians draw on for doctrine like the KJV and ESV.
Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something? 🤣
__hetz@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
This type of thing is exactly what’s brought up during Sunday school
RamenJunkie@midwest.social 1 week ago
Most of the Sunday School I remeber was just making like, paper Jesus puppets and shit.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
In Sunday school I learned what a prostitute was (from the story of Jericho) about King Solomon suggesting cutting a baby in half, that dude that sacrificed his daughter because she was the first to come out of her house, how scripture has been misused to justify slavery, how it’s been misused to justify violence, Noah’s nakedness, the left handed dude who used his left handedness to assassinate a king, Asherah poles being destroyed, David cutting Saul’s robe while he was peeing, to name a few
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 week ago
If all of the cited passages are actually talking about servants, they’re treating their servants so badly that the difference is merely semantic. Note that the US chattle slavery is unusually depraved, in mediterranean antiquity slaves were generally treated better than that (or so the surviving accounts would have us believe).
KombatWombat@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah, I don’t think it really matters what word is considered a better translation. It is talking about humans becoming property.
In Exodus 21:2-11, it says Hebrew men are restricted to being indentured servants for 6 years unless they volunteer for more. And Hebrew girls/women are sold forever, just not to foreign nations. And in Leviticus 25:44-46, it directly addresses that gentiles can be enslaved, sold, and inherited with no special restrictions.
A slave by another name is still a slave.
IronBird@lemmy.world 1 week ago
tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs.
Source?
IronBird@lemmy.world 1 week ago
it wasnt until 1888 that the pope denounced slavery wholesale, until that point is was various manners of “fine long as they’re treated right”, then “fine long as they’re not (white) christians”, “fine long as they’re christians”, “fine long as it’s punishment for a crime”. etc.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 days ago
Before Messianic times, the likes of Philo of Alexandria rejected slavery. And even in the early Messianic times (from a secular standpoint, this is when Christianity became a thing) there were abolitionists such as St Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth century bishop.
Protestants were denouncing slavery in the 1700s, such as John Wesley and the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade being formed in the late 1700s by Quakers - which was originally a Christian denomination.
There’s a 40~ minute documentary on the subject available here: youtu.be/kA0-21H1TtU
FerretyFever0@fedia.io 1 week ago
History? Tf do you mean?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 days ago
The support of slavery has never been Christian dogma.
m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Can you elaborate? He links to the NRSVUE which is the translation academics use because it focuses on eliminating modern biases.
I think the fact that other versions use “servants” is a reflection of the fact that Christians are embarrassed that the bible endorses slavery, and will tie themselves in pretzels to minimize this fact.
No, I think he is just being honest about what the bible is saying. Christians should know that the interpretive lens they use has a big impact on what they’ll see the bible advocating.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
The NRSVUE removed translation traditions. This is helpful, but the fact that both translations are correct, while for centuries if not millenia (in some cases the RSV versions ignored the Septuagint translations). While yeah, it’s still a valid translation, the word for “slavery” in our modern western lens typically conjures up images of chattel slavery where the slaves were enslaved for life as well as their offspring. Such imagery just isn’t really historically honest. Even throughout different time periods of the Bible’s writing, slaves ranged from bondservants to ones sold through debt.
m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
…and chattel slaves like in Exodus 21:20-21
Estiar@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Or chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46
Leviticus 25:44-46 NRSVUE [44] As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. [45] You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. [46] You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 days ago
Yes, that’s Exodus. Jesus did underline this whole period as a time when Moses wrote compromises because people’s hearts were hard. Another example is divorce which is what Jesus used:
Mark 10:3-5
chronotron@lemmy.world 6 days ago
the bible talks about chattel slavery and allows it.