If you have read the comments in the previous section detailing the debate between myself and the writer of the Artist Thinker Blog, you know that June had made some comments concerning that Christians were responsible for the abolition of Slavery, armed with Theology based in the Biblical Scriptures. My point of contention is that the verses that June had posted are taken out of context, and if looked at in the light of other Scriptures, can be seen to only address slavery in the light of Hebrews being enslaved to other Hebrews. They say nothing about the enslavement of other races. Also, within the Scriptures of the New Testament, there is no repealing measure to the practice and establishment of slavery. Instead, what is called for is an egalitarian communion among the members of the Church within the confines of the Church. Slaves are still expected to serve their masters whole-heartedly and cheerfully.
Some of the first Scriptures that June quoted are taken from the Old Testament, directly from the Holiness Code. (Or the Law, as the Hewbrews knew it.) Rather than quoting the verses in full, I will link to them to the On-Line Bible, wherein the reader can read the verses in any translation that they prefer. First are the verses from Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and Leviticus 25:35-55. (I will get to the verse from I Timothy shortly.) As we can see, all these verses deal specifically with the practitioners of the Law in regards to slavery; i.e., they may sell themselves into indentured servitude to pay off debts or to make ends meet for themselves and their families. However, these verses do not pertain to the practice of taking slaves from other races, tribes, or nationalities. Indeed, we find that in Leviticus 25:44-46 that the Hebrews were allowed to take slaves from other tribes, and that this practice of enslaving others extended to all the slaves progeny. To quote, for those too busy (or lazy) to look at the link:
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
This exemplifies in totality the outlines to Law in which slavery may be practiced. However, June also posted from Deuteronomy 15:12-18, which has nothing to do with Slavery, but rather Indentured Servitude. While in our day and age the difference between the two seems relatively minor, in those eras the difference was rather huge within the societies that such concepts operated.
Then, June asserts that slaves were not to be treated with ill-will. From Deuteronomy 23:15-16 we see that slaves were not meant to be given back to their masters. However, as we can see from previous excerpts from the Law, this verse only refers to those Hebrews that were taken as a slave and escaped, seeking refuge. Indeed, June then goes on to quote from Ephesians 6:9. Let me post this so all those can see the clear and inherent contradiction that June does not seem to grasp:
“9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”
From this verse we can see that there is no abrogation in the doctrine of Slavery. Rather, followers of Christ were expected to treat their slaves well. Nothing was stated about Slavery being an immoral, unethical institution.
Then, June posted two excerpts from the New Testament purportedly showing that slavery was sinful. These come from Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:26-29. However, these verses have nothing to do with slavery, but instead show the egalitarian spirit in which the Church was to operate in accepting new converts and the social communion that was to be shared. Indeed, if we look at Ephesians 6:5, we see that:
“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
as well as Colossians 3:22, which states:
“22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”
Hence we see that there is no such construction of the abolition of slavery being inherent within the Bible as June asserts. At this point, I would have to agree with the essay by Charles Bradlaugh that, “I know that Christians in the present day often declare that Christianity had a large share in bringing about the abolition of slavery, and this because men professing Christianity were abolitionists. I plead that these so-called Christian abolitionists were men and women whose humanity, recognizing freedom for all, was in this in direct conflict with Christianity.”
In conclusion, we see that the Bible actually condones the practice of slavery, the New Testament reiterates this support within the praxis of just rule over another, and nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that condemns the practice as immoral, unethical, barbaric, and wrong.
The Cathedral Arctic 
Actually, I made no such comment that abolitionists were Christians. I forgot to add that in… Heh..*shrug* I’ve been tired lately. Belle’s blood test is going in…
Anyway, the point that I had made was that the majority of slaves or, if you prefer, African slaves converted to Christianity!
By the way, you forgot to deal with 1 Timothy:
Let’s also repost the other two for those who do not want to click on the link.
Exodus does not specify Israelites.
By the way, if you noticed, I did quote Leviticus. Look back. You will see that I did. You, in your exerpt, took that out of context.
Take note of the verses that I will post farther down.
1. Kindness to aliens and temporary residents.
2. Mentions bretheren selling himself.
3. Allowing to take slaves from other countries.
Take note. They are allowed to buy slaves from other countries; but the buying of Israelite slaves and foreign slaves is the same. It is when the people sell themselves as the Gibeonites did. The only difference is that the Israelite slave is to be released upon the arrival of the Jubilee. Period!
By the way, when speaking of Israelites, notice that this would also include such people as RUTH because the people that the Israelites were allowed to buy are the people of other nations or temporary residents. Ruth became a permanent resident. Ruth, if you did not know, was the ancestor of King David, who was the ancestor of Jesus. Ruth’s husband Boaz was the son of Rahab, the Canaanite woman who saved the two spies at Jericho.
Look at how such a Moabite woman is praised among Israelites.
Quote: “From Deuteronomy 23:15-16 we see that slaves were not meant to be given back to their masters. However, as we can see from previous excerpts from the Law, this verse only refers to those Hebrews that were taken as a slave and escaped, seeking refuge.”
No, it does not say that at all. You must infer it without merit.
I inserted those last two verses not because they say anything about abolishing slavery but because they show that God does not favor the free over the slave. All are His children in His sight.
It’s true that the Bible does not specifically condemn all slavery; but it does condemn the slave trade business. You can look at the fact that it took nearly 2000 years to abolish slavery. Or you can look at this undeniable fact: It is Christian nations that abolished slavery first and pressured the rest of the world under it’s influence to do the same.
In fact, the only reason why slavery has been abolished and seen in such terrible light is because of the Christian nations. If not for that, it would be continuing on today. There was no one else who condemned it. NONE.
Comment by June — August 19, 2006 @ 1:49 am
Most excellent post!
BTW, how is Belle doing? I had a friend with a (mongrel) cat that had a disease that the vets could not specify, because in this instance the virus was peculiar only to Siamese, which Felix was not. He went through the same decisions that you are having to go through now. I was sorry that such a situation had to happen to him, and now I’m even more melancholy that such a situation seems to be repeating itself on someone else.
However, because it’s late, I’ll save my response to this post until tomorrow. Because of my ommission of the I Timothy verse, would you mind that I e-mailed a copy to you before print, where you can show pieces that I promised to confront, but then simply forgot? I would not like other people to think that I was falking out on the arguments in question. (Also, it’s a good practice from the Scientific journals (Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine) that is well established that prevents (mostly) erroneous articles through.)
Again, thank you for your time on this! 🙂
Inaeth Dragonmist
“It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it.” -A. A. Hodge
Comment by inaeth — August 19, 2006 @ 2:21 am
I was logging off; but then I realized that I had forgotten to mention that Galatians and Colossians also states that there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in God’s sight.
I also forgot to mention that for over 1,000 years, the Bible was inaccessible to the majority of the population due to illiteracy and the fact that it wasn’t translated into the native tongues of the people, nor was it preached much in any language other than Latin. The Catholic Church did not want people to know what the Bible really said.
So it actually took a few hundred years for the Bible to convict Christians.
Belle is doing well. She put on weight and is back to her normal weight. I am hopeful that this is just due to the infection she received from the bite.
I guess you can e-mail me if you want. You know the address, right? I’m kind of taken aback on this. Most of the people who challenge me are a bunch of crazy people who become blood-thirsty name-callers. It’s a bit disconcerting; but I don’t like letting things like this go by.
Besides, I have found that challenges like this only serve to increase my faith because eventually the argument devolves into that kind of craziness instead of real debate.
So thank you for your sanity. 😀
Comment by June — August 19, 2006 @ 2:55 am
No problem! I find that name calling, perjoratives, ad hominem attacks and all that other ilk to be immensely counter productive. I’d rather have a serious debate, going through the scholarly issues, and broadening my horizons. Like I said in a previous post on this blog, if you find evidence that is counter to your beliefs and still want to remain a rational person, then the best thing to do is to change your beliefs. Life is the paramount virtue, and a viewpoint should not be adhered to and cheered on despite countermandering evidence and rationale. Hence, all of my beleifs I will adhere to only until someone proves them false, upon which I will revise everything according to the new evidence.
For instance, I’ve always found it ammusing that people will crash in on the alt.bible.errancy newsgroup, or the iierrancy listserv, trying to prove their points. Almost always, their arguments were proven (sometimes over and over again, by several dozens different personages) to be false, yet the person would keep up with the same tired arguments. Why would someone do something like that? It’s obvious one party has their opinion and refuses to change it, so why spam a newsgroup or listserv where all the regulars are probably not going to change their opinions? It’s one thing if it is to be a structured debate, and quite another when all the comments are along lines of “Is too!” “Is Not!” “IS TOO”…
At least in the forum of blogs, people can research the back posts, see the debate from both sides, and then make up their own minds about it. (At least, that is what I expect it to be, but often times what I expect of reality and what it has in store for me are to completely different things! 🙂 )
Also, just because you have different beliefs from me does not make you a bad person. We just have two different viewpoints on an issue, and I see no reason why that should entitle me to call you names. If I wanted to see that happen, I’d watch one of those political talking head shows on the news channels at night! 🙂
Comment by inaeth — August 19, 2006 @ 11:21 pm
What’s up friends, its impressive paragraph concerning cultureand entirely explained, keep it up all the time.
Comment by Delila — July 28, 2013 @ 7:15 am