Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Hakons]

I think you're talking about a parable, but care to cite evidence in your argument for slavery?

For the specific verses on how Jesus instructed such, Luke 12:35~48 for the entire story, for straight cut to the part mentioned, just 47 and 48 will do, its Jesus teaching about how a slave/servant should wait on his master(term dependent on version), from the style of writing, I would say the former half of the verses would be parable, latter half would be the instructions.

Yeah, that's a parable.

41 Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?”

Here's 47 an 48:
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

That is saying people that know God is coming yet deliberately ignore this will face punishment. Those that don't know the Lord is coming and also don't obey His commandments will receive less punishment. Even if this is taken literally, Jesus isn't saying for masters to beat their slaves, he is merely describing an analogy for His parable.

You, uh, wanna back that claim up?

Are you really going to pretend that the Israelites didn't keep slaves?

Are you going to pretend that abolitionism wasn't spearheaded by Christian morality? Loving our neighbor does not include whipping our neighbor to make bread for us.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Are you really going to pretend that the Israelites didn't keep slaves?

Are you going to pretend that abolitionism wasn't spearheaded by Christian morality? Loving our neighbor does not include whipping our neighbor to make bread for us.

Those Christians were clearly better than the god they worshipped (not much of an achievement, admittedly). Christians have been motivated by their beliefs to do awful things as well. It's all irrelevant to the question of what god believes about slavery. The claim that abolishing slavery is an inherent GOOD falls flat if you believe that all morality comes from god. God never condemned slavery, and endorsed it time and again. If it's a breach of the command to love thy neighbour (did he ever say that it was? You'd think a lot of the things he did or commanded breached this too), then he's being inconsistent. Again.

So I'll ask: did god endorse objectively evil acts committed by the Israelites (sexual slavery, for instance), or were those things morally acceptable?

If they were acceptable, then would you have any problem, morally speaking, with those things being brought back today, and would you agree that abolishing them was, if not bad, then at least not good?

If they were always evil, then how can we trust that god is a source of objective morality/is accurately communicating it to us?

[Luminesa]

Of course not. However you seem to be insinuating that slavery under the Israelites was no different from slavery elsewhere - which, of course, is far from the truth.

Are you of the opinion that God would be fine with us bringing back that kind of slavery, then (perhaps even angry it was abolished)? Is sexual slavery, for instance, perfectly acceptable?

Your God is not an abolitionist. Stop pretending he is.

"God would be fine with bringing back slavery." Show me proof from the Bible that this is what God would want, and I want it from the New Testament, because all of the laws regarding slavery were not needed for Christians anymore once Christ died on the cross. And I want it specifically saying slavery is good and that God was angry to get rid of it. You're literally pulling theories from air merely for the sake of trying to say God liked slavery, so you can say, "There! God is evil, haha! I win!"

In the meantime, check this:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28. St. Paul says here that under Christ, under the New Covenant, all of these identifiers are reduced to nothing. There are no 'Jews' or 'Gentiles'. God is 'colorblind', so to speak. There is no 'male' or 'female'. God sees them without regarding one over the other. There is no 'slave' or 'free man'. There is no slavery under Christ. Think about the statement "there is neither slave nor free man" and its significance in 1st century Rome. The Christian God is so powerful that His word transcended human laws and even human borders, and effectively made all people equal through the power of grace. This idea was revolutionary for its time.

Your God is not a slave-owner in Georgia, now stop pretending He is.

[Luminesa]

Are you going to pretend that abolitionism wasn't spearheaded by Christian morality? Loving our neighbor does not include whipping our neighbor to make bread for us.

Those Christians were clearly better than the god they worshipped (not much of an achievement, admittedly). Christians have been motivated by their beliefs to do awful things as well. It's all irrelevant to the question of what god believes about slavery. The claim that abolishing slavery is an inherent GOOD falls flat if you believe that all morality comes from god. God never condemned slavery, and endorsed it time and again. If it's a breach of the command to love thy neighbour (did he ever say that it was? You'd think a lot of the things he did or commanded breached this too), then he's being inconsistent. Again.

So I'll ask: did god endorse objectively evil acts committed by the Israelites (sexual slavery, for instance), or were those things morally acceptable?

If they were acceptable, then would you have any problem, morally speaking, with those things being brought back today, and would you agree that abolishing them was, if not bad, then at least not good?

If they were always evil, then how can we trust that god is a source of objective morality/is accurately communicating it to us?

Again, you refuse to read into any sort of context, or into the ultimate end of all of those laws. First of all, invalidating your point that God installed slavery in Israel in the first place, slavery was most-likely practiced among the Israelites before God revealed Himself to Abraham. Therefore, the laws that God placed on slavery were meant to be starting limiters, so to speak. And if you read all the way to the New Testament, these limits continue growing and growing. One of the major themes of the Old Testament, even, is not only the Exodus itself, but the theme of God FREEING THE CAPTIVES. Read any of the books of the Bible that took place during Babylonian Exile. In the New Testament, the theme is that Christ FREES US from sin by His redemption on the cross. But you have to actually pay attention to the Bible to find all of these things.

In short, no. God did not approve of the Israelites' actions, otherwise He would not have put limits on them.

[Distruzio]

It's real simple: if Christianity cannot subsist on its own merits, and must sustain itself through tyranny and force of law, then it is not the Truth of the Living God.

Oh, Christianity can certainly subsist on its own merits. Thriving and expanding, however, is a trickier proposition.

In ancient times, Christianity endured and continued to exist throughout the centuries of Roman persecution, but it only became a major world religion because the Roman state got converted and began to actively promote the Christian faith.

Likewise, every major conversion of large numbers of people to Christianity happened thanks to state support. I don't mean every mass conversion was forced - in fact, most of them weren't - but rather that every mass conversion had at least a government paying for it, if nothing else. "State support" is often monetary: governments paying for Christian missionary activities.

I don't see how you, as a Catholic, can oppose the marriage of Church and State. This marriage has been an integral part of Christian history. Those Christians who deny their own history and traditions (you know who they are) can say that the marriage of Church and State is a bad thing, but you and I are not among them.

I think a segue question would be: Should we, as Christians, be authoritarian, or even totalitarian, for the sake of our religion?

In my opinion, yes.

That has been the historical stance of most branches of Christianity (including the major Protestant churches, in case anyone is keeping score) until at least the 1700s. All this "muh individual freedom" stuff is, compared to the age of Christianity, a very recent invention.

Of course, Christianity doesn't mandate religious authoritarianism. We don't have to be authoritarians. But most Christians throughout history have been authoritarians (by modern standards), and I think Christians today could desperately use a higher dose of authoritarianism.

The biggest reason why Christianity has declined so much in the Western world over the past two centuries is because Christians have allowed their religion to be turned into a private matter instead of being a key element of public life.

Agreed.

[Pasong Tirad]

FTFY

God could have been. He is supposedly omnibenevolent and eternal. If selling your daughter to be raped was objectively wrong, he would have forbidden it ages ago. He did not; instead he endorsed it. Unless you believe that he sometimes commands things that he secretly believes are evil (which would blow a great big hole in the already leaky boat of Christian morality), Luminesa's original claim, that abolishing slavery was inherently "GOOD", is false. Slavery is, at worst, a morally neutral activity, and possibly even good.

How can you even suggest that abolition wasn't inherently a good thing?

Abolitionism was unheard of in the time of the Israelites, but God Himself took it a step further, a couple of steps (a long number of steps, but still better than their neighbors) below abolition: that on the Jubilee year, everything would return to a state of equality: land and wealth redistributed to its original owners (perhaps one of the first instances of a law demanding the massive redistribution of wealth), debts to be forgiven, Israelite slaves to be freed (either right away or through manumission). It was a way to ensure that none of God's chosen would ever be left in a state of slavery their whole lives.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Are you of the opinion that God would be fine with us bringing back that kind of slavery, then (perhaps even angry it was abolished)? Is sexual slavery, for instance, perfectly acceptable?

Your God is not an abolitionist. Stop pretending he is.

"God would be fine with bringing back slavery." Show me proof from the Bible that this is what God would want, and I want it from the New Testament, because all of the laws regarding slavery were not needed for Christians anymore once Christ died on the cross. And I want it specifically saying slavery is good and that God was angry to get rid of it. You're literally pulling theories from air merely for the sake of trying to say God liked slavery, so you can say, "There! God is evil, haha! I win!"

In the meantime, check this:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28. St. Paul says here that under Christ, under the New Covenant, all of these identifiers are reduced to nothing. There are no 'Jews' or 'Gentiles'. God is 'colorblind', so to speak. There is no 'male' or 'female'. God sees them without regarding one over the other. There is no 'slave' or 'free man'. There is no slavery under Christ. Think about the statement "there is neither slave nor free man" and its significance in 1st century Rome. The Christian God is so powerful that His word transcended human laws and even human borders, and effectively made all people equal through the power of grace. This idea was revolutionary for its time.

Your God is not a slave-owner in Georgia, now stop pretending He is.

I didn't say God would be fine with bringing back slavery. I asked if he would be. Nor did I say he would be angry. I asked if he would be. I realise I fucked up one of my brackets there, but there were two question marks in that sentence. Do try to pay attention. He was obviously once perfectly happy for his chosen people to carry out what we today call crimes against humanity. Is he still happy for these things to happen, or did he once endorse evil? Or, perhaps, did he once endorse the good of slavery and today endorses the evil of freedom? How can you know which is which?

Why were the laws needed in the first place? Was the rape (yes, rape, this is who you worship) your God permitted moral once but no more? How can objective morality be so flexible?

That bit from Galatians is interesting. Anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-slavery. Of course, Paul also wrote that slaves should obey their masters and all sorts of sexist tripe that persists to this day. I guess one out of three ain't bad for the mouthpiece of god?

My god is not anything at all. We're talking about your god, remember? The one who did all those horrible things that are both moral and not-moral, yeah?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

God could have been. He is supposedly omnibenevolent and eternal. If selling your daughter to be raped was objectively wrong, he would have forbidden it ages ago. He did not; instead he endorsed it. Unless you believe that he sometimes commands things that he secretly believes are evil (which would blow a great big hole in the already leaky boat of Christian morality), Luminesa's original claim, that abolishing slavery was inherently "GOOD", is false. Slavery is, at worst, a morally neutral activity, and possibly even good.

How can you even suggest that abolition wasn't inherently a good thing?

Abolitionism was unheard of in the time of the Israelites, but God Himself took it a step further, a couple of steps (a long number of steps, but still better than their neighbors) below abolition: that on the Jubilee year, everything would return to a state of equality: land and wealth redistributed to its original owners (perhaps one of the first instances of a law demanding the massive redistribution of wealth), debts to be forgiven, Israelite slaves to be freed (either right away or through manumission). It was a way to ensure that none of God's chosen would ever be left in a state of slavery their whole lives.

I'm not suggesting that. That's what your religion suggests.

[Pasong Tirad]

How can you even suggest that abolition wasn't inherently a good thing?

Abolitionism was unheard of in the time of the Israelites, but God Himself took it a step further, a couple of steps (a long number of steps, but still better than their neighbors) below abolition: that on the Jubilee year, everything would return to a state of equality: land and wealth redistributed to its original owners (perhaps one of the first instances of a law demanding the massive redistribution of wealth), debts to be forgiven, Israelite slaves to be freed (either right away or through manumission). It was a way to ensure that none of God's chosen would ever be left in a state of slavery their whole lives.

I'm not suggesting that. That's what your religion suggests.

Once again you're yet to use anything other than anti-Christian bias to support your argument.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

"God would be fine with bringing back slavery." Show me proof from the Bible that this is what God would want, and I want it from the New Testament, because all of the laws regarding slavery were not needed for Christians anymore once Christ died on the cross. And I want it specifically saying slavery is good and that God was angry to get rid of it. You're literally pulling theories from air merely for the sake of trying to say God liked slavery, so you can say, "There! God is evil, haha! I win!"

In the meantime, check this:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28. St. Paul says here that under Christ, under the New Covenant, all of these identifiers are reduced to nothing. There are no 'Jews' or 'Gentiles'. God is 'colorblind', so to speak. There is no 'male' or 'female'. God sees them without regarding one over the other. There is no 'slave' or 'free man'. There is no slavery under Christ. Think about the statement "there is neither slave nor free man" and its significance in 1st century Rome. The Christian God is so powerful that His word transcended human laws and even human borders, and effectively made all people equal through the power of grace. This idea was revolutionary for its time.

Your God is not a slave-owner in Georgia, now stop pretending He is.

I didn't say God would be fine with bringing back slavery. I asked if he would be. Nor did I say he would be angry. I asked if he would be. I realise I fucked up one of my brackets there, but there were two question marks in that sentence. Do try to pay attention. He was obviously once perfectly happy for his chosen people to carry out what we today call crimes against humanity. Is he still happy for these things to happen, or did he once endorse evil? Or, perhaps, did he once endorse the good of slavery and today endorses the evil of freedom? How can you know which is which?

Why were the laws needed in the first place? Was the rape (yes, rape, this is who you worship) your God permitted moral once but no more? How can objective morality be so flexible?

That bit from Galatians is interesting. Anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-slavery. Of course, Paul also wrote that slaves should obey their masters and all sorts of sexist tripe that persists to this day. I guess one out of three ain't bad for the mouthpiece of god?

My god is not anything at all. We're talking about your god, remember? The one who did all those horrible things that are both moral and not-moral, yeah?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I didn't say God would be fine with bringing back slavery. I asked if he would be. Nor did I say he would be angry. I asked if he would be. I realise I fucked up one of my brackets there, but there were two question marks in that sentence. Do try to pay attention. He was obviously once perfectly happy for his chosen people to carry out what we today call crimes against humanity. Is he still happy for these things to happen, or did he once endorse evil? Or, perhaps, did he once endorse the good of slavery and today endorses the evil of freedom? How can you know which is which?

Why were the laws needed in the first place? Was the rape (yes, rape, this is who you worship) your God permitted moral once but no more? How can objective morality be so flexible?

That bit from Galatians is interesting. Anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-slavery. Of course, Paul also wrote that slaves should obey their masters and all sorts of sexist tripe that persists to this day. I guess one out of three ain't bad for the mouthpiece of god?

My god is not anything at all. We're talking about your god, remember? The one who did all those horrible things that are both moral and not-moral, yeah?

Which bit? Selling your daughter to be a sex slave (Exodus 21:8)? Paul's sexism (Timothy 2:12)? Paul's condoning of slavery (Ephesians 6:5)?

But you already knew this was in your book, right?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Which bit? Selling your daughter to be a sex slave (Exodus 21:8)? Paul's sexism (Timothy 2:12)? Paul's condoning of slavery (Ephesians 6:5)?

But you already knew this was in your book, right?

Yeah I just wanted to see what ill informed arguments you had.

There's no contextual evidence to suggest Exodus 21:8 is referring to sexual slavery, nor does it explicitely say that slavery is an inherently good thing. Slavery was practiced by virtually all peoples, in all corners of the globe. In fact in the ancient world more people were slsves than were free. The laws of Exodus and later Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not delivered to people in a vacuum, these people subsisted in this world, where slavery is the norm. The law is delivered in corrective fashion providing better regulations than those that previously existed. It's unfounded to assert that God inherently supported slavery.

Neither does Paul condone the institution of slavery. Telling slaves to obey their masters is not even a tacit approval of the system itself. In Paul's time Christianity became a slave religion, appealing to the oppressed. However, if you're familiar with the Spartacus revolt then you might be familiar with how exactly the romans dealt with insubordinate slaves (spoiler: it wasn't pretty). Paul's instructions actually subtly acknowledge that being a slave sucks.


As for Sexism, the ancient world was "sexist". Long developed cultural norms about child bearing etc also subsisted in every continent in the world. Happens when infant mortality rates are so high they need 7 kids per family to constitute a replacement rate. Even Buddha, who taught that all facets of this world including gender are an illusion, upheld male priesthoods, in accordance with this custom. Any start up religion played into this cultural norm, to not "rock the boat" as it were. Early Christianity did not set out to change the facets of this world, it was too small. Paul never dreamed Christianity would become a dominant religion as he believed the second coming would be in his lifetime.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Which bit? Selling your daughter to be a sex slave (Exodus 21:8)? Paul's sexism (Timothy 2:12)? Paul's condoning of slavery (Ephesians 6:5)?

But you already knew this was in your book, right?

Yeah I just wanted to see what ill informed arguments you had.

There's no contextual evidence to suggest Exodus 21:8 is referring to sexual slavery, nor does it explicitely say that slavery is an inherently good thing. Slavery was practiced by virtually all peoples, in all corners of the globe. In fact in the ancient world more people were slsves than were free. The laws of Exodus and later Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not delivered to people in a vacuum, these people subsisted in this world, where slavery is the norm. The law is delivered in corrective fashion providing better regulations than those that previously existed. It's unfounded to assert that God inherently supported slavery.

Neither does Paul condone the institution of slavery. Telling slaves to obey their masters is not even a tacit approval of the system itself. In Paul's time Christianity became a slave religion, appealing to the oppressed. However, if you're familiar with the Spartacus revolt then you might be familiar with how exactly the romans dealt with insubordinate slaves (spoiler: it wasn't pretty). Paul's instructions actually subtly acknowledge that being a slave sucks.


As for Sexism, the ancient world was "sexist". Long developed cultural norms about child bearing etc also subsisted in every continent in the world. Happens when infant mortality rates are so high they need 7 kids per family to constitute a replacement rate. Even Buddha, who taught that all facets of this world including gender are an illusion, upheld male priesthoods, in accordance with this custom. Any start up religion played into this cultural norm, to not "rock the boat" as it were. Early Christianity did not set out to change the facets of this world, it was too small. Paul never dreamed Christianity would become a dominant religion as he believed the second coming would be in his lifetime.

Why do you need contextual evidence? It's right there in the content. It is slavery, and it is rape, and you are being an apologist for it.

Is god so feeble that he cannot say "no"? Why would an omnipotent being, who supposedly slaughtered every firstborn in Egypt to free one people from slavery, not simply tell that people, "Slavery's wrong. Don't do it." Is god so shackled by the norms of whichever society he is worshipped in that he must actually give instructions for how unconscionable evils are to be carried out, rather than simply forbidding them? In which case, why are the old churches not unhesitatingly marrying gays and divorcees? Why do they fight tooth and nail against abortion, rather than producing a helpful handbook on how to get one?

Why could Paul not say, "masters, release your slaves. God says so."?

So can we have gender equality now? If Paul was just toeing the line, why have the old churches not started ordaining women and the like? Apparently Christianity was just pretending to be sexist to please larger religions and powerful countries; it's been dominant for over a thousand years. Why has it not dropped the act?

[Gim]

So can we have gender equality now? If Paul was just toeing the line, why have the old churches not started ordaining women and the like? Apparently Christianity was just pretending to be sexist to please larger religions and powerful countries; it's been dominant for over a thousand years. Why has it not dropped the act?

Yes, the ancient times were when humans were familiar with Eve convicing Adam to commit the Original Sin with her. As a result, God cursed women(Genesis) to be inferior to men.

[Salus Maior]

Why could Paul not say, "masters, release your slaves. God says so."?

Probably because that would have led to an even greater persecution of Christians than there already was. But he did the next best thing.

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

He defines that in God, slaves and masters are equal and must treat each other as such.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Why could Paul not say, "masters, release your slaves. God says so."?

Probably because that would have led to an even greater persecution of Christians than there already was. But he did the next best thing.

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

He defines that in God, slaves and masters are equal and must treat each other as such.

Fair enough.

Obviously, this doesn't explain why God didn't make more of an effort in the OT or, for that matter, why he didn't prevent slavery becoming established in the first place. He had 200,000 years to give his commands to humans, but he apparently only started a few thousand years ago, in a small part of the world, once things were already so fucked that he apparently had no choice but to throw his hands up and say, "I'm only all-powerful. What am I supposed to do? It's all too ingrained in their society. Just, I don't know, rape your slaves, but here are some very minor caveats. I think they're doing this sort of thing in Rome too, which will probably cause me a right headache later, but I'm not going to bother telling them that what they're doing is wrong."

[Pasong Tirad]

So can we have gender equality now? If Paul was just toeing the line, why have the old churches not started ordaining women and the like? Apparently Christianity was just pretending to be sexist to please larger religions and powerful countries; it's been dominant for over a thousand years. Why has it not dropped the act?

Yes, the ancient times were when humans were familiar with Eve convicing Adam to commit the Original Sin with her. As a result, God cursed women(Genesis) to be inferior to men.

I'm not even going to go anywhere near what you just said.

[The Alma Mater]

So can we have gender equality now? If Paul was just toeing the line, why have the old churches not started ordaining women and the like? Apparently Christianity was just pretending to be sexist to please larger religions and powerful countries; it's been dominant for over a thousand years. Why has it not dropped the act?

Yes, the ancient times were when humans were familiar with Eve convicing Adam to commit the Original Sin with her. As a result, God cursed women(Genesis) to be inferior to men.

Why would humans born 200.000 years after Eve know Eve better than humans born 202.000 years after Eve ?

[Hakons]

Probably because that would have led to an even greater persecution of Christians than there already was. But he did the next best thing.

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

He defines that in God, slaves and masters are equal and must treat each other as such.

Fair enough.

Obviously, this doesn't explain why God didn't make more of an effort in the OT or, for that matter, why he didn't prevent slavery becoming established in the first place. He had 200,000 years to give his commands to humans, but he apparently only started a few thousand years ago, in a small part of the world, once things were already so fucked that he apparently had no choice but to throw his hands up and say, "I'm only all-powerful. What am I supposed to do? It's all too ingrained in their society. Just, I don't know, rape your slaves, but here are some very minor caveats. I think they're doing this sort of thing in Rome too, which will probably cause me a right headache later, but I'm not going to bother telling them that what they're doing is wrong."

Humans have free will, and slavery is a construct of humans. God doesn't promise the absence of sins, but relief from them in Jesus Christ.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Fair enough.

Obviously, this doesn't explain why God didn't make more of an effort in the OT or, for that matter, why he didn't prevent slavery becoming established in the first place. He had 200,000 years to give his commands to humans, but he apparently only started a few thousand years ago, in a small part of the world, once things were already so fucked that he apparently had no choice but to throw his hands up and say, "I'm only all-powerful. What am I supposed to do? It's all too ingrained in their society. Just, I don't know, rape your slaves, but here are some very minor caveats. I think they're doing this sort of thing in Rome too, which will probably cause me a right headache later, but I'm not going to bother telling them that what they're doing is wrong."

Humans have free will, and slavery is a construct of humans. God doesn't promise the absence of sins, but relief from them in Jesus Christ.

A construct which he apparently doesn't like but has made only token efforts to get rid of (token efforts which look very much like complicity, but apparently aren't). He's made more of an effort to eliminate the consumption of pork than he has slavery.

[Hakons]

Humans have free will, and slavery is a construct of humans. God doesn't promise the absence of sins, but relief from them in Jesus Christ.

A construct which he apparently doesn't like but has made only token efforts to get rid of (token efforts which look very much like complicity, but apparently aren't). He's made more of an effort to eliminate the consumption of pork than he has slavery.

Christians can consume pork, and you know this perfectly well. Once again, abolitionism was largely based on religious appeal. I'm almost certain any Biblical argument for slavery came up in the 19th century and was used by slavers. Interesting bed fellows you have there, I might add. Do you want me to dump a bunch of abolitionist writings here or are you going to continue along this baseless track?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

A construct which he apparently doesn't like but has made only token efforts to get rid of (token efforts which look very much like complicity, but apparently aren't). He's made more of an effort to eliminate the consumption of pork than he has slavery.

Christians can consume pork, and you know this perfectly well. Once again, abolitionism was largely based on religious appeal. Do you want me to dump a bunch of abolitionist writings here or are you going to continue along this baseless track?

I meant that in the OT God made more effort to eliminate the consumption of pork than he did to eliminate slavery. In that, y'know, he actually said "don't eat pork", whereas he never said "don't keep slaves" (again, everything he said seems to take slavery's acceptability as read).

And again, what abolitionists believed is irrelevant to what God said. They were better than their god, who tacitly endorsed slavery time and again. They were also better than the Christians who used the Bible to justify slavery. "Some Christians supported/opposed" this" is not an argument. God makes provisions for raping slaves in the OT. It's right there. This is your god.

[Jamzmania]

Christians can consume pork, and you know this perfectly well. Once again, abolitionism was largely based on religious appeal. Do you want me to dump a bunch of abolitionist writings here or are you going to continue along this baseless track?

I meant that in the OT God made more effort to eliminate the consumption of pork than he did to eliminate slavery. In that, y'know, he actually said "don't eat pork", whereas he never said "don't keep slaves" (again, everything he said seems to take slavery's acceptability as read).

And again, what abolitionists believed is irrelevant to what God said. They were better than their god, who tacitly endorsed slavery time and again. They were also better than the Christians who used the Bible to justify slavery. "Some Christians supported/opposed" this" is not an argument. God makes provisions for raping slaves in the OT. It's right there. This is your god.

Just saying, it's a lot easier to just not eat certain foods than it is to completely alter the economic and social structures of human civilization.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I meant that in the OT God made more effort to eliminate the consumption of pork than he did to eliminate slavery. In that, y'know, he actually said "don't eat pork", whereas he never said "don't keep slaves" (again, everything he said seems to take slavery's acceptability as read).

And again, what abolitionists believed is irrelevant to what God said. They were better than their god, who tacitly endorsed slavery time and again. They were also better than the Christians who used the Bible to justify slavery. "Some Christians supported/opposed" this" is not an argument. God makes provisions for raping slaves in the OT. It's right there. This is your god.

Just saying, it's a lot easier to just not eat certain foods than it is to completely alter the economic and social structures of human civilization.

If God can't stand up for these principles, who can?* Why worship a god so unwilling to condemn that which should never go uncondemned that he'd make Neville Chamberlain say "For God's sake (heh), grow a backbone, man!" Is this god so impotent, so cowardly, that he would go along with the savage actions of a group of primitives rather than tell them they're wrong, simply because doing so might be difficult?

I would have no respect for a human who witnessed slavery and did not at least condemn it, unless they were so utterly terrified for their own safety that they did not dare speak up. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a supposedly all-powerful, all-loving being to that minimum standard.

*Us, as it turns out, though thousands upon thousands might suffer in the millennia it takes us to get round to it

On a side-note, did the Israelites have slaves immediately after their escape from Egypt? Were there tiers of slavery in Egypt, with slaves owning slaves? I would have thought it was quite easy to convince a group of people who'd just experienced first hand the cruelty of slavery, and who didn't actually have a meaningful society and economy to be altered, not to keep slaves.

[Jamzmania]

Just saying, it's a lot easier to just not eat certain foods than it is to completely alter the economic and social structures of human civilization.

If God can't stand up for these principles, who can?* Why worship a god so unwilling to condemn that which should never go uncondemned that he'd make Neville Chamberlain say "For God's sake (heh), grow a backbone, man!" Is this god so impotent, so cowardly, that he would go along with the savage actions of a group of primitives rather than tell them they're wrong, simply because doing so might be difficult?

I would have no respect for a human who witnessed slavery and did not at least condemn it, unless they were so utterly terrified for their own safety that they did not dare speak up. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a supposedly all-powerful, all-loving being to that minimum standard.

*Us, as it turns out, though thousands upon thousands might suffer in the millennia it takes us to get round to it

On a side-note, did the Israelites have slaves immediately after their escape from Egypt? Were there tiers of slavery in Egypt, with slaves owning slaves? I would have thought it was quite easy to convince a group of people who'd just experienced first hand the cruelty of slavery, and who didn't actually have a meaningful society and economy to be altered, not to keep slaves.

I don't pretend to know why God tolerated certain things. I would never be able to comprehend an eternal, all-powerful being's thought processes. I do know, however, that He did condemn slavery and that it was His followers who put an end to it, at least in my country.