Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

[serp777]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

 

[Enoch07]

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

Here is some info so that you can educate yourself on the matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States

http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/brief.htm

Enjoy!

 

[syo]

From a syncretic pagan point of view, if I find contradictions between the two testaments, the new testament wins.

 

[joe1776]

Here is some info so that you can educate yourself on the matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States

http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/brief.htm

Enjoy!

Your links are irrelevant to the OP's question because Christians are human, and all humans, Christian or not, have been gifted with a conscience. So, the question isn't "Did Christians favor the abolition of legal slavery?"

The question is "Did the Christians who favored the abolition of legal slavery do so because they were moved by their conscience or by the teachings of their faith?"

Since there are more than one hundred references to slavery in the Bible. and none condemn the practice, the correct answer to the question isn't in doubt.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

The NT clearly supported slavery, relative inequality been men and women, and had little to say about democracy and international cooperation. We'll find the same problem with the Quran. Both religions emerged at a time when humanity was not ready for the types of changes we take from granted in these more modern times. You would expect a more recent revelation from God to strongly and clearly emphasise the abolition of slavery, equality of men and women, democracy, and international cooperation.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

Joseph in Genesis called his brothers enslaving him as evil.
Sometimes God has laws restraining a bad situation from being worse.

God hates divorce in Malachi but has rules regulating it through Moses but as Jesus said 'it was for the hardness of your hearts" keeping a bad situation from worse

However everyone is a slave to something, to pleasure, to sin, to righteousness ... in Christ we move from being slaves of sin to slaves of Christ and God. Being a servant by itself is not bad for a worthy master.

 

[Rival]

From a syncretic pagan point of view, if I find contradictions between the two testaments, the new testament wins.

Why would the Christian part win when the Jewish part came first? Or is that just preference over logic?

 

[Augustus]

Your links are to irrelevant to the OP's question because Christians are human, and all humans, Christian or not, have been gifted with a conscience. So, the question isn't "Did Christians favor the abolition of legal slavery?"

The question is "Did the Christians who favored the abolition of legal slavery do so because they were moved by their conscience or by the teachings of their faith?"

Why did the anti-slavery part of our consciousness only 'activate' itself after thousands of years, and even then only in certain cultures even up to the present day?

The Greeks, for example, though slavery was simply part of nature due to the natural inequality between people.

Since there are more than one hundred references to slavery in the Bible. and none condemn the practice, the correct answer to the question isn't in doubt.

The earliest Christian to explicitly note the moral evils of slavery was Gregory of Nyssa in his 4th homily on Ecclesiastes and he did so by reference to scripture, the idea man was created in God's image.

His views were not common at the time and grew out of the philosophical implications of his understanding of Christian theology.

 

[Audie]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

Draws open the curtain before a silent and exopectant
audience to reveal-

DISPENSATIONALISM!!

 

[Audie]

Joseph in Genesis called his brothers enslaving him as evil.
Sometimes God has laws restraining a bad situation from being worse.

God hates divorce in Malachi but has rules regulating it through Moses but as Jesus said 'it was for the hardness of your hearts" keeping a bad situation from worse

However everyone is a slave to something, to pleasure, to sin, to righteousness ... in Christ we move from being slaves of sin to slaves of Christ and God. Being a servant by itself is not bad for a worthy master.

For lo, verily thins is the Lord, the God of
self-righteousness.

This thing of "everybody is a slave
to something"?

It seems Christians are a slave to making things up.

See, you enslave yourself when you do, with
self-indulgence.

Letting feelings decide what to do, not your thinking
brain Drug addicts, the lazy, the list goes on
and on. "Slave to Jesus", same thing.
Self "righteousness". Ha. As if.

Tar yourself with your brush, you dont speak
for me.

 

[PureX]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament...

I never understood why Christians think they are beholding to the OT when Jesus, and jews then and now have never believed or proposed that anyone needs to join or follow judaic religious proscriptions to be 'right with God'. Judaism was not and is not evangelical. Neither was Jesus. So there is no logical reason why modern Christians think they have to follow and obey ancient judaic religious dogma to be Christian. Especially when so much of that ancient religious dogma contradicts the teachings of Christ, and when it was the judaic religious high priests that had Jesus put to death in the story of Christ.

 

[Audie]

Why did the anti-slavery part of our consciousness only 'activate' itself after thousands of years, and even then only in certain cultures even up to the present day?

The Greeks, for example, though slavery was simply part of nature due to the natural inequality between people.



The earliest Christian to explicitly note the moral evils of slavery was Gregory of Nyssa in his 4th homily on Ecclesiastes and he did so by reference to scripture, the idea man was created in God's image.

His views were not common at the time and grew out of the philosophical implications of his understanding of Christian theology.

Today we have people decrying the moral evil
of eating meat.
I think it is immoral.

Who will win out in the long run?
Will that make meat eating immoral, or
moral depending on how it turns out?

 

[Audie]

I never understood why Christians think they are beholding to the OT when Jesus, and jews then and now have never believed or proposed that anyone needs to join or follow judaic religious proscriptions to be 'right with God'. Judaism was not and is not evangelical. Neither was Jesus. So there is no logical reason why modern Christians think they have to follow and obey ancient judaic religious dogma to be Christian. Especially when so much of that ancient religious dogma contradicts the teachings of Christ, and when it was the judaic religious high priests that had Jesus put to death.

Back away a bit further for a wider perspective.

What is anyone doing adopting a middle eastern
sky god cult as if it were their story, their history?

 

[joe1776]

Why did the anti-slavery part of our consciousness only 'activate' itself after thousands of years, and even then only in certain cultures even up to the present day?

The Greeks, for example, though slavery was simply part of nature due to the natural inequality between people.

I don't know why. However, we see it happening even today. There are cultures which are morally advanced on treating women as equals to men while other cultures lag. You won't find scripture supporting that moral advance either.

The earliest Christian to explicitly note the moral evils of slavery was Gregory of Nyssa in his 4th homily on Ecclesiastes and he did so by reference to scripture, the idea man was created in God's image.

His views were not common at the time and grew out of the philosophical implications of his understanding of Christian theology.

Can you explain Gregory's reasoning logically? I doubt it.

On the other hand, Christian-dominated USA was about a century and a half late when it finally abolished legal slavery in 1865. Then, a year later, in 1866, Pope Pius IX, morally leading his large Catholic contingent of Christians, declared that he found nothing in divine law against the buying, selling and trading of slaves. Since there are more than 100 Bible references to slavery and none condemn the practice, I can explain that, based on scripture, his position was on solid logical ground

 

[Audie]

I don't know why. However, we see it happening even today. There are cultures which are morally advanced on treating women as equals to men while other cultures lag. You won't find scripture supporting that moral advance either.


Can you explain Gregory's reasoning logically? I doubt it.

On the other hand, Christian-dominated USA was about a century and a half late when it abolished legal slavery in 1865. Then, a year later, in 1866, Pope Pius IX, morally leading his large Catholic contingent of Christians, declared that he found nothing in divine law against the buying, selling and trading of slaves. Since there are more than 100 Bible references to slavery and none condemn the practice, I can explain that, based on scripture, his position was on solid logical ground

Same as the slave holders could explain their position.

 

[Windwalker]

Both religions emerged at a time when humanity was not ready for the types of changes we take from granted in these more modern times. You would expect a more recent revelation from God to strongly and clearly emphasise the abolition of slavery, equality of men and women, democracy, and international cooperation.

If people were ready on their own to get rid of slavery and inequality between the sexes, then why would a revelation from God be necessary? They already figured it out on their own, no thanks to the lack of revelation from God supposedly withheld for thousands of years worth of human suffering "until they were ready".

Is it a case of, "I didn't tell you murder was wrong, because you weren't ready to hear it yet."? To me, this paints a very peculiar, and disturbing image of God. What exactly is the point of "revelation" then?

 

[Augustus]

I don't know why.

This is the problem behind the idea that our conscience is hardwired to 'punish' us in this regard. If it were we should expect to see at least some criticisms of slavery across all cultures, yet this does not happen.

Nowhere in the literary remains of antiquity is there another document quite comparable to Gregory of Nyssa's fourth homily on the book of Ecclesiastes:' certainly no other ancient text still known to us—Christian, Jewish, or Pagan—contains so fierce, unequivocal, and indignant a condemnation of the institution of slavery.

The ‘Whole Humanity’: Gregory of Nyssa's Critique of Slavery in Light of His Eschatology - D. Bentley Hart

Can you explain Gregory's reasoning logically? I doubt it.

It is an early expression of the idea of inalienable rights that result to a common humanity via the act of creation.

I got me slave-girls and slaves.’ For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling that being shaped by God?

God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness [Gen 1:26]. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller?

To God alone belongs this power; or, rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable [Rom 11:29]. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom.

But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?

 

[joe1776]

This is the problem behind the idea that our conscience is hardwired to 'punish' us in this regard. If it were we should expect to see at least some criticisms of slavery across all cultures, yet this does not happen.

I think your expectation is unreasonable.

I'd bet that the sensitivity of conscience is present in the human personality in a range from weak to strong. The most sensitive consciences in all cultures would feel the wrongness first. Then they would express their feelings to others close to them and force them to examine their conscience on the issue. I think the process continues to spread, from mind to mind, until it reaches a tipping point -- then change happens.

Nowhere in the literary remains of antiquity is there another document quite comparable to Gregory of Nyssa's fourth homily on the book of Ecclesiastes:' certainly no other ancient text still known to us—Christian, Jewish, or Pagan—contains so fierce, unequivocal, and indignant a condemnation of the institution of slavery.

The ‘Whole Humanity’: Gregory of Nyssa's Critique of Slavery in Light of His Eschatology - D. Bentley Hart




It is an early expression of the idea of inalienable rights that result to a common humanity via the act of creation.

I got me slave-girls and slaves.’ For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling that being shaped by God?

God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness [Gen 1:26]. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller?

To God alone belongs this power; or, rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable [Rom 11:29]. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom.

But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?

The relevant question in our discussion should be: Did Gregory's conscience lead him to his opinion on slavery or was he led to it by his interpretation of scripture?

Since you offered two quotes from the Bible, and neither was specifically about slavery, while more than 100 quotes on the topic were ignored, isn't it obvious that Gregory wasn't led to his position by his interpretation of scripture?

Slavery troubled his sensitive conscience and he found scripture he could use to support his position.

 

[Nakosis]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

While it'd be nice for a religion to make sense and be consistent, I don't think it is a requirement.

 

[sojourner]

The problem arises from two assumptions, first, an assumption of sola scriptura. We simply assume that Jesus looked only to the Bible to instill righteousness. Second, we simply assume (or insist) that everything in the Bible is equally morally valid and legitimate. We assume that our morals are absolute and immutable, and cannot change based on context. We assume that the Bible is perfect in both its revelation and it’s moral judgment.

Yet, we find Jesus willing to move outside the written texts. Numerous times, Jesus says, “It is written... but I tell you...” Also, we find that there is a group of law givers and interpreters who go beyond textual boundaries. Both the gospel writers and Paul insist that the heart be right, not adherence to biblical laws. When Jesus cited the Law, he did so with the proviso that the greatest Law was “love God,” and the second was “love neighbor,” and that the rest of the written law and prophets depended upon these two.

Paul, in bringing the faith to a different culture, had to re-interpret many cultural norms written in the Law, in order to have the faith make sense to a different culture. Paul talks about a circumcision of heart, as opposed to a physical circumcision, for example.

Suffice to say that the premise of the Bible being the only source of moral guidance, and the immutability of written moral codes imposes rules upon us that were never meant to be imposed. Love trumps everything else.

We have discovered that all humans, regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation, or social status are equal, due to the overarching principle of love. Therefore, due to love, it is impossible to keep slaves and follow that principle.

Further, we assume that Jesus transcends his cultural context. He does not. Jesus was a product of his time and place, and taught out of that paradigm.

Additionally, we ignore that biblical slavery in Israel at that time was a far different dynamic than slavery of 200 years ago in the US. Slaves in ancient Judea had legal protections and rights. Debt slaves could only be held for a certain length of time, had to be treated as members of the slaveholder’s family, and, upon release, had to be granted “parting gifts” of food, clothing, tools, and some land, do that they could subsist. This is a far different picture of slavery Jesus “advocated” than the one we normally think of. I’m not convinced Jesus would condone the type of slavery we fostered here.

Therefore, we are not particularly constrained by biblical injunction, but can weigh texts against the principle of love. We can draw from sources other than the Bible to inform our morals, and we can judge when a teaching needs to change in order to meet the present context. I believe our Christian forbears were wrong to uphold American slavery with the Bible, just as surely as our present, draconian moral watchdogs are wrong to dehumanize homosexuals, based on some perceived biblical injunction.