this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
346 points (95.1% liked)

Greentext

8315 readers
564 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:

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
Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works
346
Anon does genealogy (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Society was okay with slavery at the time.

Yes and the bible reflects that.

the mention of the Law of Moses being written due to the hardness of hearts is enough

Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong

It was the Christians who abolished slavery and started questioning it

Sure, but didn't the advocates of perpetuating slavery use the bible to justify themselves, because the bible doesn't take a clear position against slavery?

It's interesting that you point to the reformation as key because Las Casas (responsible for the first law banning enslavement in colonies) was reading the Book of Sirach when he realised slavery was wrong. I mention it because it is excluded from the protestant canon.

You seem to be in denial about how okay with slavery Christianity was. Do you prefer the work of impartial scholars to that from people that think it's important to protect the reputation of Christianity?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Yes and the bible reflects that.

That's my point.

Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong

No. I'm only referring to enslavement here.

Ephesians 6:9

Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Colossians 4:1 (NRSVUE)

Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Exodus 20:13

You shall not murder.

Sure, but didn't the advocates of perpetuating slavery use the bible to justify themselves, because the bible doesn't take a clear position against slavery?

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.

I mention it because it is excluded from the protestant canon.

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

Fodder and a stick and burdens for a donkey; bread and discipline and work for a slave. Set your slaves to work, and you will find rest; leave their hands idle, and they will seek liberty. Yoke and strap will bow the neck, and for wicked slaves there are racks and tortures. Put them to work in order that they may not be idle, for idleness teaches much evil. Set them to work as is fitting for them, and if they do not obey make their fetters heavy. Do not be overbearing toward anyone, and do nothing without deliberation. If you have but one slave, treat him like yourself, because you have bought him with blood. If you have but one slave, treat him like a brother, for you will need him as you need your life. If you ill-treat him and he leaves you and runs away, which way will you go to seek him?

You seem to be in denial about how okay with slavery Christianity was.

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.

Do you prefer the work of impartial scholars to that from people that think it's important to protect the reputation of Christianity?

"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

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong

No. I'm only referring to enslavement here.

Yeah I thought it was obvious I was referring to a subset of the behaviours of enslavers.

Exodus 20:13

You shall not murder.

The bible is pretty clear that it isn't murder to kill your own slave

You can misuse anything in the Bible to advocate for anything.

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?

"Impartial scholars" there is no such thing.

Sure, but there are ways that scholars can try to diminish their bias, and it isn't through legally binding faith commitments.