[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?

[dalke]

I think you have a loaded question, intrinsically tied to cultural imperialism, and designed to support your own beliefs.

Europe, as the main world power for centuries, had its fingers everywhere on the planet. Yes, they were Christian. But, so what? These same Christians were also the ones who put the trans-Atlantic slave trade together in the first place.

You need to ask yourself how is it that the same Bible which influenced the abolitionists somehow did not prevent Christians during the previous 1,500 years from banning slavery, or from owning slaves?

You question about "what caused slavery to decline" is addressed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism and links from there. You can read that, yes, there was a religious component:

> An abolitionist movement only started in the late 18th century, however, when English and American Quakers began to question the morality of slavery. James Oglethorpe was among the first to articulate the Enlightenment case against slavery, banning it in the Province of Georgia on humanist grounds,

Note that during this Quakers were considered heretics and many of their views blasphemous. But even Quakers, when they first came to North America, though that slavery was acceptable. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quakers#Slavery... :

> Most Quakers owned slaves when they first came to America; to most Quakers "slavery was perfectly acceptable provided that slave owners attended to the spiritual and material needs of those they enslaved."[25] 70% of Quakers owned slaves in the period from 1681 to 1705; however, from 1688 some Quakers began to speak out against slavery until by 1756 only 10% of Quakers owned slaves.

Again, you have to ask yourself why it took devout Christians in the 1700 so long to see that the Bible is actually against slavery?

There's a clue in the above text. Note the "Enlightenment" in there? If you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_Sta... you'll see:

> In the same period, rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized slavery for violating human rights. A member of the British Parliament, James Edward Oglethorpe, was among the first to articulate the Enlightenment case against slavery. Founder of the Province of Georgia, Oglethorpe banned slavery on humanistic grounds. He argued against it in Parliament and eventually encouraged his friends Granville Sharp and Hannah More to vigorously pursue the cause. Soon after his death in 1785, Sharp and More joined with William Wilberforce and others in forming the Clapham Sect.

Yes, what's new is the contribution from Enlightenment thought, which is based on another non-conformist (and non-Christian) faith; Deism. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism#Enlightenme... :

> The Enlightenment of the mid-18th century in Europe consolidated the separation of religious and secular institutions that has led to what some consider to be a false rift between Christianity and humanism. But while the Enlightenment crystallized humanism as a distinctly secular, liberal philosophy, it did have sectarian roots that reached back to early 18th-century England.[3] There rationalists known as ‘Deists’ rejected traditional theology and clericalism in favor of ‘natural religion’. Non conformists, they preferred to sidestep the churches and seek God personally by way of reason and innate moral intuition.

You can see the ties to Quaker thought in that description. The page also says:

> Perhaps the most valuable contribution of this liberal Christianity is that it gave rise to the first British movement for the abolition of slavery, which was founded by the Quakers in the late 18th century. However, it was the Evangelical Christian humanism of William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) that led to the successful abolition of the slave trade.

Yes, it wasn't until the humanism of the secular Enlightenment, coupled with the non-conformist beliefs of the Quakers, that the Evangelical Christians started to think that maybe, just maybe, even non-Christians shouldn't be slaves.

It wasn't the Bible that kicked this off this change in how to understand Christianity, it was the Enlightenment.

[fraytormenta]

Sure I can concede your point here, but, my man, you are quoting an article on "Christian Humanism" - you are proving my point. The Enlightenment is also a direct outcome of the European Reformation - a Christian movement.

[dalke]

Again, you are using poor logic. You cannot say that since Y is after X then Y is directly and solely caused by X.

Certainly nearly all of Europe was Christian. Does that make everything in Europe a direct outcome of Christianity? No. Or, if "yes" then that would mean the establishment of the transatlantic slave trade was as Christian as the Reformation.

The Enlightenment included Deists. Deist believe in an abstract, distant God, but not the Biblical God. Some were anti-Christian, and argued the Bible was pure superstition. Even Christian Deists rejected the miracles of the Bible, and only considered Jesus to be a moral teacher. They considered themselves 'true' Christians, and thought that the miracles, the prophecies, the concept of the Trinity, etc. were superstitious nonsense added after the fact to corrupt the real story.

The Enlightenment also built upon the European scientific revolution, which itself was built upon the science in the medieval Islamic world, which in turn built upon other even older systems, including 'falsafa' - Ancient Greek philosophy.

Thus, I can argue that the Enlightenment is a direct outcome of Greek philosophy, injected into a time weary of the religious conflict (like the Thirty Years war) that had dominated the previous century.

The key question is, why did mainstream Christian thought change after 1500+ years? If a correct understand is possible through a close reading of the Bible, then why is there change, and why does the change seem to reflect the influence of non-Christian/external influences on the culture?

It's almost as if people pick and choose which parts of the Bible to emphasize and which to ignore.

P.S. You have used "brother" and "my man". Why do you think I am a male? Very few others on HN use direct gender references as you do, so it rather sticks out as an unusual practice.

[fraytormenta]

I submit to you, that you are right, if your assertions are right. However, I find your summations in need of further research. I do not think they fit reality to satisfy your explanation. For example, even if you found secularist Deists mouthing sentiment against slavery, it is still not they who had much to do with ending it. There are two major steps, historically, that had to occur before slavery was put into a major decline: bending the British parliament's neck to issue ban on slave trade and mobilization of British navy to hunt slavers. Secularists simply endorsed, for few exceptions, the actions of Christians who ensured those two changes by arguing in public arena from the Bible. In that endorsement, the secularists simply closed ranks with Christian intelligentsia in their opposition - they did not do something "new" or on "their own," nor were they able to motivate enough people with their rhetoric apart from the biblical case, which is what really made the big difference.

The question about the lack of opposition to slavery is fair. I think a good starting point for research is first the history of slavery. Corruption had its place, economics, caste-systems. If people benefit from an immoral system, they are unlikely to oppose it. There was always a Christian minority opposing it in every century, however. From the first century churches had organized campaigns to purchase people out of slavery (they prioritized other Christians). The Bible clear states "it is not good to became slaves of men" - the passage was preached and commented on by the Church Fathers and subsequent theologians. Further, most of the earth's Christians themselves were slaves. It took time for them to acquire enough education and social weight to demand rights - this did not go down without bloodshed. It is a moral failure of the Church to allow the system to exist so long with such meager opposition, but it is also the triumph of the Church to repent of its sin, and nobody can rob us of that. I hope we repent of many more sins in the future.

Hey sorry if I confuse gender or use too much gender-specific language - I live very far from the West and in general just weird. :-) Is it better to call you sister?