[fraytormenta]

Hey friend, I am the author. I ended up reading every verse, and learning Greek and Hebrew on my binge of curiosity, and the Bible continues to impress me. I would say that something that you ask had actually happened, just not in exactly the same ways as you imagine. There are also some factual errors in your post. For example, the Bible has a lot to say about slavery and is directly connected to its abolition. If you're looking for easy introduction on that try Stefan Molyneux's video cast on youtube on this subject (he is an atheist).

[brianobush]

Slavery was present in the US until 1860 or so, and I think the bible was around a little before that time. The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery. I would not assert that the Bible has any connection to its abolition.

[fraytormenta]

Sure, but I got nothing to respond here to - a negative assertion cannot be proved or disproved. Do you have another causal historic explanation for the abolition of slavery? Do you mind providing an academic reference for your view?

[brianobush]

The fact that the bible has been around for thousands of years while slavery flourished and continued should be enough evidence. Asking for an academic reference is a bit off here.

[fraytormenta]

that's not enough evidence. i asked for academic reference, because i don't think engaging an uninformed minority view is fruitful if the person presenting the view didn't bother to learn what views there are out there to begin with. it is better to look to a professional historian - do you expect that I can present something better than they here in the comment section?

[dalke]

In the US, the Bible was used by both the slavers and the abolitionists to justify their viewpoints. The abolitionist book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was written in part to counter the pro-slavery argument that the Bible allowed slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery gives a overview, as does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery . The latter gives this example of the acceptance of slavery by one Christian organization:

> Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has seen significant internal conflict and endured dramatic change. One notable example where church mission activities in the Caribbean were directly supported by the proceeds of slave ownership was under the terms of a charitable bequest in 1710 to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. The Codrington Plantations in Barbados, were granted to the Society to fund the establishment of Codrington College. In the first decade of ownership, several hundred slaves at the plantation estates were branded on their chests, using the traditional red hot iron, with the word Society, to signify their ownership by the Christian organisation.

It also points out that "St. Thomas Aquinas taught that, although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law," and "Bede Jarrett, O.P. asserts that Aquinas considered slavery as a result of sin and was justifiable for that reason." "St Thomas' explanation continued to be expounded at least until the end of the 18th century."

These two Wikipedia pages give many links to academic treatments, such as "Religion and the Antebellum Debate Over Slavery", of which the Amazon review says: "This anthology of original essays by historians explores the religious dimensions of the antebellum sectional conflict over slavery. Covering such familiar topics as the proslavery argument and denominational schisms, these essays emphasize the diversity that existed within regions, states, and denominations; the importance of local factors in shaping responses to the slavery controversy; and the powerful pulls toward moderation and unity that existed within the institutional church. Drawing on the recent flowering of scholarship on religion, the essays collected here provide a variety of new approaches, including quantitative methodologies and a heightened sensitivity to issues of race, class, and gender."

I believe that for much of it 2000 years, yes, Christian religions supported slavery, based on Biblical interpretation. Enslaving Christians was prohibited well before enslaving non-Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery covers more details about the Catholic Church and slavery, and lists some observations by Cardinal Avery Dulles: "The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys." and "Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law."

[fraytormenta]

brother that's accurate, but also misdirected. Prolonged support for slavery in the Christian community does not negate the undeniable fact that is the Christianity community under the influence of the Bible that put in the most sweat in ending slavery. I had a question directly uncovering this truth: if not the Christians under the influence of the Bible, then what caused slavery to decline?

[mikestew]

For example, the Bible has a lot to say about slavery and is directly connected to its abolition.

It also has a lot to say on the topic in that slaves are to continue to be subservient to their masters, thus supporting the point. If one reads it cover-to-cover and doesn't walk away with a stack of questions starting with "so which is it?" on just about any topic, you weren't paying attention.

[fraytormenta]

mike, you are confusing the impressions you got from the text with the impressions historical actors that banned the slavery received. those are different things.

[mikestew]

And this is how we go down the road of It Means Whatever You Want It to Mean: "well, when viewed in historical context..."

I'm not some casual observer in this with an agenda. I've previously been a licensed pastor for a denomination you've heard of. Read the texts cover-to-cover more times than you have, studied Koine Greek and Hebrew with professors that have professionally translated texts. I'm not appealing to authority, nor trying to start a dick-waving contest, but a resume can sometimes lend some context of who you're dealing with.

With that out of the way, I'll agree that historical context can be useful. But, man, I've seen that line abused more times than not. A section of text makes you feel a little uncomfortable? Hand-wave it away with, "oh, well, back then it was different..." For example, Jesus speaks of rich people and camels passing through the eyes of needles. I've heard that explained away with, "the wall of Jerusalem had a very short entrance, called the Eye of the Needle, through which a camel would have difficulty passing but it was not impossible." OMG, how many intellectual backflips do I need to do to feel comfortable with my lack of charity and emphasis on obtaining more stuff? How about we take Jesus at his word, and quit being so materialistic?

So I personally come to an impasse: taking the Bible word-for-word literally isn't an option (I can explain why if needed, but I'll assume it's obvious), but one can go the other way with so much "context" that Jesus himself wouldn't recognize the religion you end up with. Hence my conclusion that the canon cannot have been divinely inspired. If there's a divine being who wishes a personal relationship with us as individuals, she needs to do a better job getting to the point. You and I can't even agree on whether or not this divine being thinks slavery is OK or not. That's some pretty crap writing if something so simple isn't made plain.

[_isus]

> How about we take Jesus at his word, and quit being so materialistic?

I agree with you.

> ... but one can go the other way with so much "context" that Jesus himself wouldn't recognize the religion you end up with.

That is sadly what is done a lot of times. Being a follower means I seek to be who Jesus wants me to be. Often this means I have to lay down my view of things and take up His view of things.

> Hence my conclusion that the canon cannot have been divinely inspired.

That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What if you are wrong?

> If there's a divine being who wishes a personal relationship with us as individuals, she needs to do a better job getting to the point.

Or, perhaps, we need to listen to God Himself, not others' opinions of God (even our own).

> You and I can't even agree on whether or not this divine being thinks slavery is OK or not.

And we likely can't agree on programming languages or operating systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't program or use operating systems.

> That's some pretty crap writing if something so simple isn't made plain.

Or, we are not accepting His Word as it is, we are too busy letting others add and take away from it. For what it is worth, it is plain enough for a child to understand. I am convinced that a sincere seeker of Truth will find God through His Word, the Bible. Don't give up too soon. It may be just around the corner for you.

Edit: punctuation

[mikestew]

Don't give up too soon.

I do appreciate your response, and trust that I'm smiling when I write this without any contempt: when do I get to give up? I'd say I gave it a more fair shot than most. Maybe it's $DEITY's turn to pick some of the slack. :-)

From my wall of text, one might conclude that I did, indeed, give it a fair and sincere shot. And I came to a different conclusion that you appear to have. No worries, I'm fine with that, we all make our own journey. I've enjoyed mine, and I hope you enjoy yours.

[_isus]

> I do appreciate your response, and trust that I'm smiling when I write this without any contempt: when do I get to give up?

And, likewise, I hope you do not feel any contempt from me. When do you get to give up? I do not mean this in a disrespectful way ... I would ask God.

> Maybe it's $DEITY's turn to pick some of the slack. :-)

I just prayed that you will sense His love for you (and maybe even interpret that as picking up some of the slack).

> From my wall of text, one might conclude that I did, indeed, give it a fair and sincere shot.

I, for one, do not fault you for lack of trying. I am just saying don't give up now ... breakthrough could be around the corner. That is what I have prayed for you.

> And I came to a different conclusion that you appear to have. No worries, I'm fine with that, we all make our own journey. I've enjoyed mine, and ...

Ultimately, we all have to choose which path to follow. I respect you for at least giving it serious thought and consideration.

> I hope you enjoy yours.

Overall, yes, but following Jesus Christ does not necessarily make life easier. It certainly isn't boring, though! :)

[fraytormenta]

mike, I believe you slightly mistook my point. I was not saying that interpretation is a purely subjective matter. I said that, regarding ending slavery, your interpretation of what the Bible has no bearing on events that had already transpired. You were not the one ending it, so if you believe that the Bible supports slavery, that is entirely irrelevant to the point in case. About giving up, I would say never give up learning and seeking truth anywhere where you have attention for it. Invariably, I am convinced at the end of each truth inquiry is the fountain of Truth - God. As long as you are learning, you will find Him.