Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 66899

The Southern preachers who defended slavery misused the Bible. They themselves were slaves to the culture in the sense that they could not see or did not want to see the problems with slavery.

The Bible does not teach explicitly against slavery because the Bible is not about overthrowing social structures that are evil. It's about redeeming people to new life. Many preachers did advocate abolition of slavery and used the Bible for that, too. I think that one can find principles against slavery in the Bible. The main teaching in the Bible was for masters to be good and kind to the slaves and the slaves to obey masters. Slavery then was a different form from the South - and many were willing "slaves" in order to pay off debt.

Marcia, Baptist Board 51 Comments [10/27/2009 6:24:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 17
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Papabear

How convenient.

10/28/2009 10:48:39 AM

observiNG

Number one, the question I'd like to ask all supporters of slavery: If slavery isn't bad, why aren't you willing yourself or have your family to be slaves? Or are you?

Number two, the same thing (misuse of Bible) can be said about today's justification of unfair treatment of LGBT people.

10/28/2009 1:52:13 PM

Woody

"I think that one can find principles against slavery in the Bible"

You think? I thought True Christians were certain about everything. There's no room for thinking about things, after all the Babble is totally inerrant...right? Get back on your knees and pray harder.

10/28/2009 3:06:48 PM

Canadiest

"The Southern preachers who defended slavery misused the Bible"

Some things never change

10/28/2009 5:17:35 PM

Old Viking

Your Bible accepts slavery enthusiastically, and promotes a great many other barbaric and evil practices. Read it some time.

10/28/2009 5:54:35 PM

Darth Vader

How is this fundie? She is historically correct - slavery in the first century Roman Empire was different from slavery in the American South.

10/28/2009 6:16:02 PM

John_in_Oz

You lie!

[See what I did there? :)]

10/28/2009 8:44:39 PM

Semi-Christian

Interesting translation, but incredibly flawed. A friend of mine (religious) had a much better translation. It was that god was introducing the laws slowly to allow mankind to smoothly follow the rules without anyone's current life been completely ripped away. It was also to allow the rules to be introduced gradually and reduce the chance of people going against the rules. There was a lot more too it and it did actually seem to follow what I've read from the bible.

This person, on the other hand, seems to not realize that there is always a right way to translate something, and failure to do so is a failure of the person as much as the source. Of course, that's more of a religious POV, so let us all just continue to, rightly, call the person a moron for trying to follow incredibly outdated rules.

Of course I will point out that this person isn't overly fundie, nor are they necessarily bad. When they said "the main teaching in the Bible was for masters to be good and kind to the slaves and the slaves to obey master" it shows that they care for their fellow human (despite what they have read in the bible) and aren't dicks....so there this comment registers a meh for me.

10/28/2009 10:06:49 PM

Lia

Ugh, reminds me of Doug Wilson, Slavery Apologetic Extraordinaire!

I sat through a class of his, where he assured us that slaves were happy and jolly, and loved their slave lives!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Wilson_%28theologian%29


10/29/2009 9:15:12 AM

tracer

"The Bible does not teach explicitly against slavery because the Bible is not about overthrowing social structures that are evil."


In that case, stop trying to pass laws against "unbiblical" behavior.

10/29/2009 11:59:35 AM

Porter

Will you be going through this same bullshit when homosexuality becomes cool with you guys too?

10/29/2009 1:46:39 PM

Vince

I get where your coming from, but the bible didn't just fail to explicitly prohibit. It gave detailed instructions.

10/29/2009 3:51:10 PM

Thejebusfire

Slavery then was a different form from the South - and many were willing "slaves" in order to pay off debt.

I don't know what "south" you're refering too, but the American south bought and sold slaves like property.

10/29/2009 7:51:48 PM

Zoo

"They themselves were slaves to the culture in the sense that they could not see or did not want to see the problems with slavery."

Hmm. . . I wonder who else we could apply this statement to.

10/29/2009 8:08:37 PM

myheadhurts

Not about overthrowing social structure... oh so what was the temper tantrum in front of the temple about?

10/29/2009 9:56:29 PM

Mat

Actually, many priests did campaign against slavery.

Just not in the Bible Belt.

10/30/2009 12:28:54 AM



Slavery still exists today.

10/30/2009 4:03:44 AM

Adrian

@Darth Vader: not that different. Sure, there were a few differences (Roman slaves having the possibility to buy their freedom, Roman slavery not being based upon explicit racism), but in both cases slavery was the backbone of their economy. Just look up "latifundia", and compare with the plantations of the old South.

10/30/2009 11:58:09 AM

Quantum Mechanic

Marcia never read the babble.

10/30/2009 3:22:23 PM

Darwin's Lil' Girl

The Bible loves slavery. I'd like to see how you can preach against it with the Bible.

10/30/2009 8:30:16 PM

Brianisha

The bible is not about overthrowing evil, it is about making more evil. Indentured servants is still a form of slavery.

11/14/2009 9:40:01 AM

Canadiest

Yeah, Give that up. Hebrew scholars will tell you slaves were totally forced into their servitude. In America they were captured in forced to work under threat of severe punishment or death.

To their credit only, some early preachers were indeed against slavery but a lot more were for it.

11/14/2009 11:17:46 AM

thrillhouse

'put her back in the kitchen where she belongs'

12/4/2009 1:57:37 AM

Swede

That article about Douglas Wilson was really informative.

"he proposes a Christian approach to education based on the Trivium, a Greco-Roman approach to education"
Last time I checked neither the Greeks nor the Romans were Christians.

"he intended to defend the once traditional biblical approval of slavery since, in his view, disregarding that tradition will lead to disregarding biblical sanction against homosexuality as well"
So, what's the problem with that? (Although, he really has a point: If you say you follow the Bible word for word, then you can't nitpick.)

12/4/2009 2:41:42 AM

JadedGirl

myheadhurts- Running off assholes who were lining their pockets with the money of the poor is a "temper tantrum"?


6/23/2012 11:43:16 PM
1 2 3