this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
459 points (95.6% liked)
Greentext
8321 readers
725 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's my point.
No. I'm only referring to enslavement here.
Ephesians 6:9
Colossians 4:1 (NRSVUE)
Exodus 20:13
You can misuse anything in the Bible to advocate for anything. I've seen people try and use to to advocate in favour of homosexuality, to execute homosexuals, to advocate transphobia, to advocate abortion, a devil's advocate argument was used regarding murdering infants as well, against the trinity, universalism, etc.
All of which fall apart if it's read in it's proper context and Catholic* interpretation.
The books referred to by Protestants as the "Apocrypha" are still valuable documents, just not viewed as infallible.
Although, reading Sirach... You can go either way with it.
Sirach 33:25-33
It was society, the way the Bible was written was just addressing slavery as an established fact. The abolitionists were driven by their Christian faith.
"Impartial scholars" there is no such thing.
*Please note, I am not using the word "Catholic" to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but to refer to the universal and historically grounded Christian church and denominations as opposed to spin-offs. So think more Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist and Presbyterianism as opposed to non-denominationals and most Baptists
Yeah I thought it was obvious I was referring to a subset of the behaviours of enslavers.
The bible is pretty clear that it isn't murder to kill your own slave
Doesn't that strike you as an argument against the utility of the bible as a moral guide? Don't you think it would be better if it was harder to use the bible to defend slave ownership? Like if it took a clearer stance against slavery. If instead of saying "treat your slaves justly and fairly" if it said "the truly righteous free their slaves and trust in the lord to provide, those that hold slaves will not inherit the kingdom of heaven" wouldn't that have hastened the end of slavery within Christendom?
Sure, but there are ways that scholars can try to diminish their bias, and it isn't through legally binding faith commitments.
No, it's not. It doesn't say that. It clearly states man is made in God's image, being a slave doesn't lessen or change that.
No, because any moral guide can be misused if you randomly take verses out of context.
Diminish, possibly, but if you had a scholar say "Christianity help ended slavery and here's why", wouldn't you just accuse them of trying to defend the reputation of Christianity?
When the bible said it's okay to beat your slaves so severely that they die, as long as you they survive a few days before they die, it was wrong for me to characterise that as murder, I was hasty. But the bible clearly says that slavery is legitimate when the enslaved weren't treated the same as the free by the law. The fact that they're both made in God's image was clearly not relevant.
I don't think I'm taking these verses out of context, the context was that slavery was common and Christianity didn't really have a problem with that, you're the one applying a modern morality and reading into the text things that the author didn't mean. Your position is "it wouldn't matter if the bible was more clearly opposed to slavery" and I think that's delusional.
No I wouldn't, I would consider their argument. I'm not dogmatically committed to believing Christianity is bad. Are you dogmatically committed to believing Christianity is good?
Christianity did help end slavery, but it also defended it. Christianity saw slavery for 1500 years and said "meh", and then for almost 400 years Christians argued with each other about whether it was okay or not, and now you say Christianity was against slavery the whole time, and you're wrong.
The Bible isn't a legal document, this was regarding a law for an ancient nation that doesn't exist anymore that was built on compromises with people who have hard hearts.
Depends on what our definition of Christianity is - I wouldn't define enslaving people as a Christian practice.
You have a misconception here that Christianity was popular for the first 1500 years. For the first few centuries of its existence, Christians were persecuted quite severely. Then for the next millenia, it was a religion for rulers generally, and the general populace often held on to pagan beliefs.
In the middle ages, slavery did naturally fizzle out in western Europe, the debate was generally started again whenever the whole translatlantic slave trade started in the 1500s. In 1772, a British court ruled that it was impossible for a man to be property of another man Lord Mansfield (note: dated language):
so at least by this point it was already seen as not legal in mainland UK. Eventually the UK banned it in the whole empire in 1833.
Revelation 18:10-17
The abolitionist movement was primarily driven by Christians. A notable figure was William Wilberforce who become one after converting to Evangelical Christianity. The hymn "Amazing Grace" was written by a former slave-trader turned abolitionist, who upon conversion to Christianity, penned the lyrics ".. That saved a wretch like me; I once was lost, but now I'm found; was blind, but now I see!" out of repentance. William Wilberforce eventually proposed the ban on the transatlantic slave trade which was equated to piracy in 1807.
In the USA, slavery was essentially ended by the Great Awakening which was a time marked by mass conversion to Christianity among the peasantry.
Christianity was definitely a major, if not an essential factor, towards ending the slave trade.