The Virtuous Woman - SLAVERY IS NOT WRONG

[Are_grits_groceries]

This is an issue I feel I have to address for many reasons. One thing that I have learnt in my 2 and half years as a born again Christian is that God is sovereign. In addition to that He does not need or want human advocates. With the issue of Slavery Christians are often put in a corner because they are trying to defend God and at the same time the bible nowhere directly attacks slavery. The bible does not condemn slavery. So Christians try to act like Job's friends and try to defend God in a rather foolish way by condemning slavery, as if God forgot to do it Himself in the bible. I think this is a very unwise thing for a Christian to do because if slavery was wrong, God would have said so himself. But He doesn't say its wrong. As John MacArthur says in his study bible, " The New Testament nowhere directly attacks slavery; had it done so, the resulting slave insurrections would have been brutally suppressed and the message of the gospel hopelessly confused with that of social reform. Instead Christianity undermined the evils of slavery by changing the hearts of slaves and masters".

In the New Testament Paul writes a letter to Philemon, who was a prominent Christian. Philemon owned a slave called Onesemus, who ran away. Somehow he came into contact with Paul in Rome and as a result Onesemus became a Christian. The apostle Paul quickly grew to love this runaway slave and wanted to keep him in Rome. But as Onesemus had run away from his master he had broken Roman Law, and Paul knew that this was an issue that had to be dealt with. So Paul sent Onesemus back to Colosse to his master Philemon. Paul writes this beautiful personal letter to Philemon urging him to forgive Onesemus and to welcome him back as a slave and a brother in Christ. Now the issue is this, if slavery was wrong this was a perfect opportunity for Paul, the great apostle to condemn it. But he doesn't, he actually urges a slave to go back and serve his master. Why? So many Christians find it hard to deal with this book and they cant understand why Paul never condemns slavery.

I understand that there is so much evil in slavery, when masters abuse their slaves. That is wrong. The bible condemns treating others in an evil way. So this is not the issue. But slavery in itself is not wrong. Just as husbands can abuse wives, does it mean marriage is evil? Or parents can abuse their children, does it mean parenting is wrong? Because masters can be evil to their slaves, it doesn't mean that slavery is wrong. Just as wives are to be submissive to their husbands, likewise slaves are to be submissive to their masters.
http://thewomanofvirtue.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-08-30T06%3A07%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7

This one stopped me cold. Everything under the sun can be justified if you just find the right verses, knit them together, and
apply some "logic." Check the website.

[glowing]

1. Who writes this crap? Paul returned the slave because he was in tune

with the Roman Law, and did not think, because it was of the times, that owning slaves was wrong. As we developed into civilized nations the idea of owning slaves is outdated. Its not freedom or equally treating your fellow (wo)man.

[Solon]

9. The same person who writes about psychologically abusing her own child...

this is a sick and twisted individual:

http://thewomanofvirtue.blogspot.com/2008/10/four-year-old-who-knows-she-needs.html

[Midlodemocrat]

23. She sure is. I don't know why anyone would give anything she

writes or says any credence.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. Well, We're Doing It, Midlo

I've never even heard of this nutjob, and yet we're giving credence to her rants by reposting her nonsense here, including links?

Why do we provide an opportunity for more hits to her site?

I honestly don't get it. Don't we already know what the radical right is about? There are no surprises in her screed. Just confirmation of what we already knew. Why bother even bringing her up at an oasis like DU?
The Professor

[treestar]

40. I do find it to be a surprise that she actually says slavery is not wrong

Never heard that in modern times even from fundie right wing nutjobs.

Even Palin and the members of Rapture Ready might disagree with that!

[midnight]

24. Beautiful!

[fasttense]

2. Slavery is evil, immoral and wrong.

If God had written the bible, he would of pointed this out. But since men, blind, arrogant men, wrote the bible they didn't notice the problem.

[ravencalling]

3. Sorry the argument is ludicrous

Someone who is taking their bible and trying to apply logic in this manner doesn't work. Because the Bible did or did not tell me so, just doesn't work here. The only thing I can think of is if a person wants to be a slave like wanting to have a role as a submissive wife, based on bible submission teachings. Thats stretching it.

[barbtries]

4. does she take comments?

this is horrifying. i'd like to see her take on who should be the slaves and who the masters. eek

[elleng]

5. Why are you writing this here?

The United States is a country of Laws.

U.S. CONSTITUTION

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


I have no interest in what you have learned about 'your God', recently or ages ago.

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. I was posting because of the warped logic I was reading.

I Haven't learned anything about "my God." She thinks she has, and
she is an example of the huge numbers of people who take the Bible
and turn it to some conclusion. Yes, we are a nation of laws, but not
if some people had their way.

[elleng]

10. Please clarify:

'She thinks she has' is WHO? 'Warped logic' where?

[Are_grits_groceries]

11. I was trying to say that

the author of the article thinks she has learned something
about her God. I was also saying that she has warped logic IMHO.
Not looking for a fight here. I was taken aback by the whole idea
in the article.
:hi:

[elleng]

44. Thanks; me too.

But who is the author? THAT's the unclear part.

[Are_grits_groceries]

48. Check out the link.

There is a whole raft of info that the
author posted about herself.

[left is right]

6. keep in mind the Bible reflected many of the social mores of its time

also, the bible wasn't about transforming society but individuals and once individuals were sufficiently transformed society would be too. Next realize the spirit in which the owner was supposed to receive him back as a brother/equal in Christ. some forty odd years later the first meeting to canonize the Bible would be held and Philemon was the head guy

[Buzz Clik]

8. Read the logic:

I do not believe slavery is wrong, because a) The bible does not condemn slavery and b) Slavery makes so much sense and to say slavery is wrong we rob the gospel off its meaning and even Election.

I'd be willing to bet that some Bibilical scholar could find passages stating that slavery is wrong.

But, Jesus on a Trailer Hitch! Is she serious???!!! Christ said that people should give up all their worldly possessions, but it's okay to own other people?

Dolt.

[wellst0nev0ter]

13. Jesus Christ On A Trailer Hitch Indeed

Well, using her logic, nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say that abortion was wrong. In fact, there are some passages (Ex 21:22-24; Num 5:11-31) that seem to support it.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. Jesus loves me, this I know...

for the voices tell me so :)

[okieinpain]

52. thank you and I'm pretty sure if someone looks hard enough they

can find something that says women shouldn't express opinion or have a thought other then what their husbands tell them.

[mrcheerful]

16. That was the old Christian religion not todays new and improved

version, where not only are you allowed to own everything that your neighbor has, but if you pray hard enough to santa jesus, send money to your brand of church, your entitled to vast amounts of riches.

In fact todays new and improved religion, not only can you drive it to heaven but you can fill it with all your worldly wealth so you can buy that prime piece of property next to where St. Peters mansion sits on a cloud in the sky.

What you didn't get the memo that God passed on to the pope who then passed it on to the priests who then passed it on to the sheep who then let it get into the fundies hands? Get with the times man, your entitled to vast riches its right there in the bible somewhere between page 1 and page 3001.

Oh btw, it helps if you cherry pick passages apart to see gods message, after all you can't take bible passages as they are written, that only gives you this peace and turning the other cheek non sense, rember jesus and his followers carried long knives and pointy sticks. They over threw the Roman government which is why the jews killed jesus.

( somethings I heard from my ex fundie friends, who felt their church deserved a part of my SSDI, only 10% and it entitled me everything my heart desired. )

[Midlodemocrat]

12. If you work at it hard enough, you can find a passage to support

just about any warped belief.

My advice: Stay out of the Old Testament.

[JNelson6563]

14. Aye but what of the NT?

Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2: 9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

[Midlodemocrat]

15. Like I said...

Servants doesn't carry the same connotation as slaves. Those passages seem to be extoling the virtue of serving God.

[JNelson6563]

17. Ah yes, I see.

Uh-huh. Whatever works for you.

Julie

[Buzz Clik]

18. Julie, are you saying the NT endorses slavery?

[Solon]

19. In a sense, it does, slavery isn't condemned in the NT, even though it existed...

at the time the NT was written. This could be interpreted to mean that slavery was implicitly endorsed in the New Testament.

[Buzz Clik]

21. Here's an interesting analysis of this centuries old debate:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

[Solon]

26. Hmm, I believe that this presents a rather idyllic and unrealistic view of Roman era slavery...

I'm not saying that slavery in Roman society was even close to the barbarity of New World Slavery, however, it wasn't nearly as good as the author of that article portrays. Even with all the legal protections presented to the slaves, even the limited social mobility, all of it mattered little to the involuntary slaves who were still little more than property.

Female and male slaves were regularly raped, laws were enforced haphazardly, provincial law wasn't nearly as consistent as Roman law(within the city), etc.

In any event, trying to demean this as simply a type of indentured servitude, another practice that we inherited from the Romans, but also abolished, is frankly insulting, and has nothing to do with the Biblical lack of condemnation of either of these unethical and abhorrent institutions.

[Buzz Clik]

29. I think I'll bow out of this conversation with this:

I could never be a part of any organization that doesn't openly condemn human slavery. Perhaps slavery wasn't viewed as any big deal 2000+ years ago, but we have evolved. In reference to the OP, anyone justifying slavery through any means is beneath contempt.

[Midlodemocrat]

22. It was a cultural thing when the Bible was written.

People generally can't see past that fact and grasp any and all to make the entire religion evil.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. But religious people are selective about what is historical and what is relevant now

The polygamy, slavery, and child abuse in the Bible are supposed to be taken in the proper historical context. Which makes those things okay, I guess, and not something that should be used to discredit the Bible as a useful text for people today. The edicts of Leviticus (against eating shellfish and mixing fibers, for example) can be ignored, because those were "cultural things". OTOH the OT prohibition against homosexuality is relevant to us today, hence the necessity of inserting a religious view of marriage into a state's constitution.

So while the entire religion may not be evil, it's practitioners have certainly shown a tendency to be arbitrary, capricious, and cruel. Could somebody come up with a guide for people to distinguish which parts of the Bible are "cultural things" and which are applicable to modern people?

[JNelson6563]

33. It does at least passively

Encouraging people to be good little servants and they'll get their reward in heaven. What's that tell you?

Julie

[awoke_in_2003]

37. My advice: stay out of the New Testament, too.

Read something productive, like a science book.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. This is what the Confederacy used to justify slavery

you know.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

25. Paul was a tentmaker

and arguably rendered insane by the chemicals with which he worked to ply his trade.

His rantings are chock-ablock with all sorts of insanity about women keeping their mouths shut and their hair long; about being "all things to all people," about all government being ordained by Gawd. Like all "prophets," he had an agenda, i.e. getting other people to do his bidding. At the same time, he had a real hard-on for the leaders of the "church" (known only as "The Way")who had actually known and walked with Yeshua the itinerant rabbi. That's why he makes such a point of going on about "seeing" the resurrected Yeshua. Others had actually known the man. Paul one-ups them by claiming to have a personal relationship with Yeshua once he's become a zombie and transforms "The Way" into a death cult.

At the same time, since the Jews in Palestine were causing so much trouble with the Romans, Paul had to emphasize that his version of "The Way" was completely toadied-up to the civil authority. Remember that Paul was writing BEFORE the persecutions. He was, in a word, a suck-up, and a quite possibly insane one, at that.

Paul's comments have been used not only to justify slavery, but also to justify union-busting. Oodles of preachers were on the company payroll here in West Virginia a hundred or so years ago and preached vehemently that union organizing was demonic, communist and against the wiil 'o gawd.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[shoeshock]

27. are there women like that??

send one my way...

mine just spends all my money!

[SheilaT]

30. This is exactly why organized religions, any religions, all

religions are fundamentally wrong and probably evil. Great evil is constantly committed in the name of religion. Torture, murder, war, and on and on.

I do not accept that the Bible is the received word of God. It is, simply, the collection of myths of one particular people and has been elevated to being literal truth and a worthy guide of how to live. Nonsense. It's contradictory, full of racist, misogynist, sexist bull crap, and anyone with half a brain who actually reads it critically can find it sometimes amusing, often horrifying, and always pure fiction.

[AndrewP]

32. Truth

[LanternWaste]

35. If religion were removed from the human equation...

If religion were removed from the human equation we would simply find another mental construct to justify torture, murder, wars, etc. (indeed, the worst of the wars and genocides of the 20th century had nothing to do with religion...).

And we would then be calling for the eradication of *that* construct when the evil doesn't stop, and that evil would find another mode, and again, we would call for the eradication of that philosophy.




Would that it were so easy to remove evil from our midst.

[SheilaT]

39. I'm not saying that removing religion

would remove evil, but I am so weary of the religious justification for so many terrible things, and THEN the religious try to tell me, a non believer that I'm wicked and have no morals and so on.

[donco6]

43. I'd actually prefer that.

If the mental construct relies on reason rather than fairy tales which the religious believe "on faith", then we might actually have a shot at combating it. As it is, using reason to combat the Bible is a pointless waste of time.

[LanternWaste]

46. One person's philosophical construct is another person's religion.

One person's philosophical construct is another person's religion.

For myself, I haven't really seen a very effective or efficient means of combating political theories and their adherents... other than what practicing what every "imaginary" philosophy or religion practices.

Additionally, I can't really support the implied statement that religion relies on fairy tales (love the back-handed compliment there, btw...) while philosophy, economics, and politics don't-- from where I sit, they *all* require faith in something that exists nowhere but our own minds and imaginations...

But again, what one person see's as a reality, another person may see as nothing more than mere perception-- whether that reality is someone's political beliefs, or religion. Fundamentally, as they all only exist in our imaginations, they are thus all fairy tales.

Some people think particular fairy tales are more important and more valid than others, I suppose...

[donco6]

49. Sorry, but no.

"One person's philosophical construct is another person's religion". I vehemently disagree with this false equating of religion with philosophy.

When you lose the Bible - the foundation for today's Christianity - the arguments must shift to reason-based and experiential-based arguments. Experiential arguments are easily dismissed through logic, which leaves reason-based arguments. In the public square, it would be a joy to see religion exposed to reason, without the inevitable "The Bible says it, I believe it" arguments. Perhaps more people could be released from their addiction to irrationality.

[LanternWaste]

51. But they all have as a common denominator oneparticular thing

But they (philosophy, economics, politics, religion, etc) all have as a common denominator one thing-- they exist nowhere but our own minds, they are all fairy tales.

What you appear to be saying is that your chosen fairy tales are more valid and more sound than other fairy tales-- which is very normal I suppose as most politicians and preaches say the very same thing... six of one, half a dozen of other.








"In the public square, it would be a joy to see religion exposed to reason"
I would suggest (unless your mind is already made up that your pet fairy tales are better than everyone else's) reading some of the neo-classical apologists-- F.F. Bruce, Anthony Meynell, John Wenham, etc...

Notice how calling someone's beliefs, faiths, and philosophies a "fairy tale" seems quite condescending and belittling?

On edit: this is becoming a sub-thread. I maintain my original point to the poster I had responded-- remove religion from the equation and depredations, evil, wars, genocides would still be in existence as we would simply find other justifications for our actions (of which we currently do).

[donco6]

53. Not at all.

All I'm saying is that it would be refreshing to have religion exposed to a rational discussion, rather than allowing the religious the advantage of running to their Holy Book Hidey-Hole. Philosophy has to stand or fall on reason; religion is not constrained by reason, but gets to run out of bounds to "faith" - whatever that is.

So, no, they are not *all* fairy tales. Just religion.

[LanternWaste]

54. Faith is simply trust

Faith is simply trust in that of which we do not have full and absolute knowledge of (as per Hegel). I would hazard that everyone uses faith in almost every aspect of life-- unless one has full and absolute knowledge of the driver on the highway in front of him, one is "forced" to put an amount of faith that s/he will abide by social mores and regulations (merely one, daily example). And that does not seem irrational to me.

Thus, we're still at the point in which all imaginary human constructs are "fairy tales". And you're simply exemplifying my point-- you hold that your fairy tales are right and just and valid, whilst many others aren't. And so many people of so many beliefs say the precise same thing-- including the occasional televangelist, and the



"refreshing to have religion exposed to a rational discussion..."
I would hazard that one is simply not holding enough discussions about it outside one's comfort zones, and/or not reading as many perspectives as possible written about it-- as those discussions do exist, both in quality and in quantity.

If you are indeed unaware of religion being discussed within the confines of a critical, systematic approach, and a reliance on reasoned argument, I would suggest the authors I had previously mentioned... otherwise I believe you're quite lacking some fundamental knowledge of many of the major faiths, and relying instead merely on the pop culture definition of what religion is (as do also many adherents of those same major faiths) thinking it nothing more that "magic thinking".

[derby378]

31. There is a reason why Quakers abolished slavery within their own ranks

Many of the early Quakers had indentured servants if not slaves. William Penn retained fellow Quaker James Logan as an indentured servant for a while. But our community was one of the first Christian communities in Europe or the States to renounce slavery completely because of our convictions regarding the equality of all men and women in the eyes of God.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

34. When she was asked about whom she would enslave nowadays, she had this to say:

What you have to understand is that slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they had nothing to live on. Slaves in biblical times actually benefited from the practice. Some masters treated their slaves very well. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master. This is what I mean by slavery in a godly way...


https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=665800124788984797&postID=2310007576850085857

Leaving aside the utter whackitude of that statement, here is another case of a fundie claiming "historical context" when confronted with something considered acceptable in the Bible that is reviled by modern people. We're supposed to take all that slavery, polygamy, rape, child abuse, etc., in an appropriate historical context. Yet we're also supposed to take the Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God and view it as an accurate and relevant guide for our lives today. :crazy:

[donco6]

41. Yeah, well, she thinks Harry Potter is of the devil, too.

Who's got time to worry about what this nutcase thinks?

[DrPresident]

42. Well at least she thinks Sarah Palin is wrong...

http://thewomanofvirtue.blogspot.com/2008/09/5-reasons-why-i-believe-sarah-palin-is.html

[babydollhead]

45. I bet that isn't even a woman.

I bet that it's written by one of the very fucked up men like the ones in "the promise keepers"

[kiva]

47. I wondered about that too--

the idea of a black woman supporting slavery is waaaayyyyy too strange.

[LibertyLover]

50. I'm not surprised.

27 years ago, my mom and I were on a tour in eastern Europe. In the group was an older man and his nephew from (prepare to be surprised) Texas. Because the nephew and I were roughly the same ages, mid 20s, we would talk. It turned out that both uncle and nephew were fundamentalist Christians who didn't like Catholics that much. The uncle explained to me that Catholics prayed to statues. I was at the time a recovering Catholic and had pretty much figured out that paganism was my home religion, but I had to laugh at that old canard. But the one thing that I remember the best about the duo was a comment the nephew made to me about slavery. One day, in all seriousness, he said that slavery was not a bad thing, that it was not condemned in the Bible and he and his uncle and most of their church thought it would be a good idea if it were re-instituted. I can still remember my shock and disgust. I then told him that he and his uncle were crazy and their version of Christianity was not one I cared to be a part of. After that I avoided both men and refused to be drawn into any conversations beyond polite socialisms like "good morning".