Oops, my bad, as I didn't notice your use of a double-negative. Are you always so negative?
What makes you so positive that I'm being negative?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How much did white "Christian" religion promote hatred and black slavery?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
What makes you so positive that I'm being negative?
I would be pleased to consider that as a possibility. It is a very important document.
Well... do you support the death penalty as a punishment for all crimes??
No??
Then you do think that owning another human being can be humane in some cases.
Even if you don't believe in jail but only fines for criminals, you are still then compelling them to work for the benefit of someone other than themselves.Yes??
Well then. Good luck with that.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi......... I concentrated upon your Thread title, rather than your OP:
How much did white "Christian" religion promote hatred and black slavery?
I expect that Christians needing to be able to point to something holy and which supported their wicked ways, pointed to the New Testament.
Half of the following quotes were once attributed to Paul, but not now.
You might not agree with the following translations, but I expect that slave masters would have welcomed them!
You masters, treat your slaves in a righteous and fair way, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 4:1 "
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything Colossians 3:22
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 1 Peter 2:18
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them Titus 2:9
Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants[a] regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. 2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. 1 Timothy 6:1-2
Apartheid in South Africa was supported by the Dutch Reform Church who also interpreted the Bible to mean that blacks were cursed by God. Since the Bible clearly states that...."God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35) There is no justification in scripture that any human is inferior or cursed because of race or skin color.
Yes, they were....but their convenient misinterpretation of scripture gave them the justification.
In 1902 things were viewed a little differently to what they are now. At the time he wrote that, there were no great achievements made by blacks in white culture. Whites were superior, but not in "admirable ways"....only in aggressive dominance and prideful academic achievement, not necessarily in intelligence or in giving black people an opportunity to shine the way they have in more recent decades. They have proven themselves to be the equals God always knew they were. (Acts 10:24-25)
If God had given his message to already hated blacks in this "time of the end", how far would the message have reached? God uses the circumstances of the times to achieve his goals. Today he has as many black servants as whites and every color in between....there is no superiority and never really has been except in the minds of those with a selfish and hateful agenda.
Exodus 21:20, 21
''20 “If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged. 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money."
You cannot put today's standards on yesterday's accepted norms. Slavery was "normal" in those times.
If an Israelite got into trouble financially, they could sell their services to the creditor for a period of time until the debt was paid. He was in the service of his creditor in that circumstance...."owned" until the debt was paid.
If he was the breadwinner for a family, a son or daughter could help by offering to go into service to help pay the debt.
This was the Jewish way of giving everyone the dignity of being able to work off their debt if they fell on hard times. The alternative was to go to jail, so what good would that have done anyone?
Even the poor were given gleaning rights in the fields of agricultural land owners. The perimeter of their fields was planted especially for the poor to work and glean their own food.
"God’s Law stated that kidnapping and selling a human was punishable by death. Furthermore, Jehovah provided guidelines to protect slaves. For example, a slave who was maimed by his master would be set free. If a slave died because his master beat him, the master could be punished with death. Women captives could become slaves, or they could be taken as wives. But they were not to be used for mere sexual gratification. The gist of the Law must have led righthearted Israelites to treat slaves with respect and kindness, as if these were hired laborers.—Exodus 20:10; 21:12, 16,26, 27; Leviticus 22:10, 11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
Slavery was part of the economic system of the Roman Empire, under which first-century Christians lived. Hence, some Christians were slaves, and others had slaves. (1 Corinthians 7:21, 22) But does this mean that disciples of Jesus were abusive slave owners? Hardly! Regardless of what Roman law permitted, we can be confident that Christians did not mistreat those under their authority. The apostle Paul even encouraged Philemon to treat his slave Onesimus, who had become a Christian, as “a brother.”—Philemon 10-17."
Did God Condone the Slave Trade? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
So the Bible was not meant to be enduring? Which other divine commandments have become obsolete?
That is your interpretation of what I wrote? Seriously?
What this demonstrates to me are serious comprehension problems on your part.....
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Whites have done such a major reversal in the last 50 years, that white-guilt is the major social malady, not racial hatred. LBJ completely turned the practice of racism on it's head, switching from using the KKK and Jim Crow to keep blacks down on the plantation, to welfare and black overseers (Jesse Jackson et al) keepin' them down on the
But now with this BLM hatred of police and anything white (black racism) and rioting, it looks like they may be persuading the white-guilters to rethink their guilt. From there, it doesn't look pretty.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Relative to what we saw happening with slaves here in the U.S., yes. Of course, I'm not advocating slavery in any way but was just making a comparison.
Under Jewish Law, slaves could not be unfairly punished or killed, must be fed before the owners could eat, could not be worked on the Sabbath, and some must be allowed to be freed on their 7th year as being a slave.
The passage I quoted from Exodus implies otherwise. It explicitly gives permission to slave owners to beat their slaves as severely as they want, provided they don't die right away.
... unless the slave agrees to stay, which is pretty likely if the slaver owns the slave's wife and children and can control access to them.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But this doesn't negate what I wrote.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
For THEM. They are fine with enslaving OTHERS.
Why play a long game at all?
I don't believe in using prisoners for de facto slavery. It's obvious it's the point and it's still slavery. If they are to work, they should get at least minimum wage. I also feel that way about any job that finds some weasel talk to get out of paying even the inappropriately low minimum wage.Then you do think that owning another human being can be humane in some cases.
None that any would admit to, anyway.
this site helps
I mean, we have this advertised every February ...
That's kinda pathetic, though.
But not moral, especially if morality is objective.
It's almost like God's will changes with the human cultural winds ...
See, I would consider that more of a bartering situation, much like how you could pay someone in fruit or something instead of cash. If you are not allowed to leave, if you are not allowed to see your family or even HAVE a family, if you are not getting paid for nonvolunteer work (or paid such a ridiculously low amount it might as well be for free) you are a slave.
The Jubilee year, if I recall, is about canceling debts, so I guess there ARE other alternatives to slavery?
Jesus talks of forgiving debts often. I mean, it just seems like the generous thing to do.
"So, slaves, instead of working just 20 hours for ME, you can, through the goodness of my heart, work another FOUR to feed yourselves. I won't be lifting a finger, of course."
Let's be real here: the slave lost his value (because society has been historically unimaginative with the disabled). And set free to do WHAT? I doubt there were disability checks back then.
Key word "could" noted.
Tomato, tomahto.
Yes, they were also to do all of the housework, rear the kids, etc.
Why not just make them hired laborers?
You said that slaves couldn't be "unfairly punished or killed." The Exodus quote says that slaves can be killed (provided they don't die right away) by virtue of the fact that the slave is the slaver's property... i.e. not related to any sort of punishment for an offense.
You said that slaves "must be allowed to be freed" after 7 years. A slave whose family is being held hostage by the slaver is not free to leave in any reasonable sense.
I don't care if you force them to work or not. If you forcibly take someone and put them in a cage against their will, you are asserting a right to claim ownership over them.
You don't force a pet hamster to do work, but when you keep it in a cage there's no doubt you own it.
Oh, and I find your assertion that you should be able to prevent workers from seeking jobs with lower wages also some form of ownership and control, as if you know better than the worker who took the job.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
They needed no Justification Slavery had gone on since the year dot. all ancient religions at least accepted it. including all the great world religions.
It was not until the social revolutions that occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries that the new social ethos of equality started to to to be reinforced by law.
On a world scale colour was not a deciding factor at all. The Arab Eastern worlds took slaves of every race. Africans enslaved each other.
Black slaves only became the norm in the Americas.
First, I am not kidding myself about explaining all of these laws in this format. There are laws stating exactly what I have said, but going into this in detail is too much. Second, there is a law against kidnapping. This means a couple of things, and while it is not provable (by me here at this time) the setup appears to be that they buy up slaves around them to make new citizens. Keep in mind Israel is all about reproduction and increasing population, about adoption and transformation from warlike culture to peaceful culture. In fact, the laws do state that they can purchase slaves from other countries, however the laws also state that those slaves must be naturalized and part of every Pesach festival. In other words I think it is reasonable to suspect they become family and therefore eligible for jubilee. So I do not see this as these laws being 'Fine' with enslaving others so much. What I see is a culture that is made up of slaves and that hates slavery and war equally. In addition they get pillaged regularly, which means they regularly lose citizens that way; so there is a sort of reverse reaction going on. Anyway it is a mistake under these circumstances to assume the worst.
The law mentioned earlier in which a slave volunteers to be a slave for life represents conversion to me. If you will recall there is a famous quotation in Psalm 40 which goes "...Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened..." which alludes to transformation. Keep in mind David is the descendant of a convert, and he is the king of the country. I realize it sounds like thin reasoning, but take into consideration the character of the Jewish history and look at the observations of the Christians. Why did they think Judaism was all about liberty? Even though Paul tells Christians "You have been bought with a price," James tells them the perfect law gives freedom. There is the letter of the law and the spirit says Paul. In fact you could be looking at the laws about slaves all wrong.
Paul says "(NIV) For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:3-4)" Paul here is making an observation about Judaism, and he is attaching its goal to the Christian nation. Despite having all of this 'Divine power' does he expect Rome to be conquered in his own lifetime? I don't think that he does.