Comment on Anon does some genealogy
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 days agoSociety was okay with slavery at the time. It didn’t really have much to do with Christianity - slavery was happening and arguably started in pagan society, the nobles got converted, but the peasantry generally didn’t. Slavery basically was just an unquestioned fact of life.
It was the Christians who abolished slavery and started questioning it - while the devout ones were against it for a while, it didn’t really garner traction until the 1700s when people were learning to read and the reformation had already taken effect.
m0darn@lemmy.ca 6 days ago
Yes and the bible reflects that.
Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong
Sure, but didn’t the advocates of perpetuating slavery use the bible to justify themselves, because the bible doesn’t take a clear position against slavery?
It’s interesting that you point to the reformation as key because Las Casas (responsible for the first law banning enslavement in colonies) was reading the Book of Sirach when he realised slavery was wrong. I mention it because it is excluded from the protestant canon.
You seem to be in denial about how okay with slavery Christianity was. Do you prefer the work of impartial scholars to that from people that think it’s important to protect the reputation of Christianity?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 days ago
That’s my point.
No. I’m only referring to enslavement here.
Ephesians 6:9
Colossians 4:1 (NRSVUE)
Exodus 20:13
You can misuse anything in the Bible to advocate for anything. I’ve seen people try and use to to advocate in favour of homosexuality, to execute homosexuals, to advocate transphobia, to advocate abortion, a devil’s advocate argument was used regarding murdering infants as well, against the trinity, universalism, etc.
All of which fall apart if it’s read in it’s proper context and Catholic* interpretation.
The books referred to by Protestants as the “Apocrypha” are still valuable documents, just not viewed as infallible.
Although, reading Sirach… You can go either way with it.
Sirach 33:25-33
It was society, the way the Bible was written was just addressing slavery as an established fact. The abolitionists were driven by their Christian faith.
“Impartial scholars” there is no such thing.
*Please note, I am not using the word “Catholic” to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but to refer to the universal and historically grounded Christian church and denominations as opposed to spin-offs. So think more Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist and Presbyterianism as opposed to non-denominationals and most Baptists
m0darn@lemmy.ca 6 days ago
Yeah I thought it was obvious I was referring to a subset of the behaviours of enslavers.
The bible is pretty clear that it isn’t murder to kill your own slave
Doesn’t that strike you as an argument against the utility of the bible as a moral guide? Don’t you think it would be better if it was harder to use the bible to defend slave ownership? Like if it took a clearer stance against slavery. If instead of saying “treat your slaves justly and fairly” if it said “the truly righteous free their slaves and trust in the lord to provide, those that hold slaves will not inherit the kingdom of heaven” wouldn’t that have hastened the end of slavery within Christendom?
Sure, but there are ways that scholars can try to diminish their bias, and it isn’t through legally binding faith commitments.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 days ago
No, it’s not. It doesn’t say that. It clearly states man is made in God’s image, being a slave doesn’t lessen or change that.
No, because any moral guide can be misused if you randomly take verses out of context.
Diminish, possibly, but if you had a scholar say “Christianity help ended slavery and here’s why”, wouldn’t you just accuse them of trying to defend the reputation of Christianity?