A brief summary of Christian Abolitionists’ arguments against enslavers’ appeals to the Scripture (18th & 19th c).
(Note: they DO NOT EVER just say, “the Bible is errant here.” Also, these are not my arguments, just conveying the info.)
Thread:
[Claim: “Abraham owned slaves”]
a. We do not know the exact character of this “slavery.”
b. The actions of the saints recorded are not prima facie normative.
c. God often allowed for actions and institutions which were contrary to His own moral Law and natural law, they He
...regulated with the end to (1) diminish its abuses, then (2) eliminate the practice (see marriage in OT vs. Jesus in NT; “because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses allowed it…”).
[Claim: “Israel was allowed to own slaves and the Law of Moses sanctioned it”]
d. All indenture among Hebrews was to be temporary, primarily for the sake of paying debts, injury was prohibited, breaking up families prohibited, diminishing resources prohibited, the poor of all classes were to be relieved, etc.
e. Permanent slavery was solely to be in lieu of war and as the only alternative to death. Only the nations of Canaan were under the “ban” and therefore to be conquered. War, beyond this redemptive historic commission, was ONLY to be defensive. (Many examples given.)
f. Thus, “slaves” were temporary indentures among Israel, permanent only among those “under the ban” in one-time commissioned warfare, or those spared their life when unjustly attacking Israel.
g. Further, as Israel kept the Law and trusted in the promises of God, each of these categories would become increasingly unnecessary, ultimately eliminating the institution altogether.
h. Israel began to enslave even their own brethren, through fraud and violation of God’s commandments, in part leading to Israel’s punishment and exile to be “slaves” yet again for a time in a foreign land.
i. In short, Israel was once enslaved, slavery is bad, redemption would eliminate both war and slavery.
[Claim: “Neither Christ nor the Apostles condemned slavery”]
j. The coming of Christ, His death, resurrection, and ascension obliterated the wall of separation, thereby forever abolishing the distinction between Israel and the Nations. Hence the only allowable permanent slavery in the Old Covenant is forever abolished. As redeemer, He
ended slavery, as was the intent from the beginning.
k. The Apostle Paul did not desire for a small group of people, within a vast empire that sanctioned slavery, to attempt to subvert the social order by force, but rather to destroy the institution through gospel and ideology.
l. Thus, he declared no difference between Master and Slaver before God, all one in Christ, that Masters were slaves to Christ, and Slaves freeman in Christ; he encouraged Philemon to release Onesimus and called out his hypocrisy; he told Christians to get their freedom if they
...could; etc. All of which did in fact destroy the institution among Christians.
m. The new African Slavery little resembles OT slavery or even Roman slavery.
n. Slavery is not natural to any “race” or people group; all are equal by birth.
o. Manstealing warrants death.
p. Those who buy, sell, or harbor stolen human property are guilty of manstealing.
q. The current institution violates EVERY SINGLE commandment and is a “National Sin” which will lead to God’s hot judgment.
r. The Scripture, the arc of redemptive history, the laws of nature, the Gospel, and the command to “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” condemn the institution and all Christian men everywhere ought to oppose it.
s. Some, not all: Those suffering under the institution can by right rebel and revolt, since, being contrary to both God and Nature, Masters and Governors have no right to enforce. (“To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world,” *wink, wink*)
t. The West is destroying Africa, turning peoples against each other, filling them with alcohol, corrupting them with greed, and pilfering and exploiting both their resources and people, all due to unrestrained, unchristian, avarice.
On a more serious note, this is part and parcel of what Carles Mills has called the "epistemology of ignorance," necessary for the maintenance of the Racial Contract.
If interested, the following long quote will clarify. 1/
2/ "[O]n matters related to race, the Racial Contract prescribes for its signatories an inverted epistemology, an epistemology of ignorance, a particular pattern of localized and global cognitive dysfunctions (which are psychologically and socially functional), producing the
3/ "ironic outcome that whites will in general be unable to understand the world they themselves have made. Part of what it means to be constructed as “white” (the metamorphosis of the sociopolitical contract), part of what it requires to achieve Whiteness, successfully to become
The sooner you realize the whole "Christian" masculinity cult, with their broader theology and ideology, is just a conscious or unconscious justification for controlling, manipulating, and exploiting women as sex slaves, the sooner you'll understand the movement.
They didn't 1/
2/ think their way through rigorous study into their theology/ideology and then realize that women happen to be subordinate receptors of their abuse, as some might think. No, that was the demiurge of the whole movement. The ideology is the justificatory effect, not the cause.
3/ Honestly, this is how you understand the whole Moscow, ID cult and adjacent, regardless of what they may claim or tell themselves. It helpfully explains all the weirdness, as a good sociological or psychological theory should.
"If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. And every now and then I wonder what I want them to say. Tell them not to mention 1/
2/ "that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school. I’d like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to
3/ "give his life serving others.
I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. And I
"One of the greatest problems of history is that the concepts of love and power are usually contrasted as polar opposites. Love is identified with a resignation of power and power with a denial of love. It was this misinterpretation that caused 1/
2/ "Nietzsche, the philosopher of the “will to power,” to reject the Christian concept of love. It was this same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to reject Nietzsche’s philosophy of the “will to power” in the name of the Christian idea of love. What is needed
3/ "is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.
"In short, I read Marx as I read all of the influential historical thinkers—from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial yes and a partial no. Insofar as Marx posited a metaphysical materialism, an ethical relativism, and a strangulating 1/
2/ "totalitarianism, I responded with an unambiguous “no”; but insofar as he pointed to weaknesses of traditional capitalism, contributed to the growth of a definite self-consciousness in the masses, and challenged the social conscience of the Christian churches, I responded with
3/ a definite “yes.” My reading of Marx also convinced me that truth is found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism. Each represents a partial truth. Historically capitalism failed to see the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in
What's so odd to me about the way these Christian Nationalists talk about voting rights is that there is literally no mention of voting or democracy anywhere in the Bible. Nowhere. Nothing. The ideas that created our democracy (yes, I know, democratic republic) were products 1/
2/ of the Enlightenment, like it or not, and rested on the idea that every individual was a rational agent capable of freedom, discerning the moral good, etc. The reason why the voting franchise was not extended to women and most "races," whether they owned property or not, is
3/ because they were believed to lack this capacity (for one BS reason or another). The franchise was not curtailed because of Bible this, or Bible that, or Biblical definition of "household," or whatever. Again, the Bible literally says nothing about voting or democracy, which