Slavery, The Bible, and Infidelism

Lets look at the "false christianity" of the slaveholders through the eys of a slave. Read on:

What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean I strictly apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper: for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference----so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ.

I therefore hate the corrupt slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypercritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look up is as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of “Stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil”. I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be the minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as the class leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. He who sells my sister, for the purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it is a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right of learning to read the name of the God who made me. He who is the religious advocate of marriage robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravages of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families,----surrendering husbands an wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers,----leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate. We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, and women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles fort he poor heathen all for the glory of God and good of souls!

The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart broken slaves are drowned the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious pslam and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and the mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood stained gold to support the pulpit, and t he pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other-----devils dressed in angel’s robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, An American Slave pg 118-119

 

So, you are saying that all those slaveholders that the apostle Paul called his brothers in Christ were not Christians. You think you are right and the apostle Paul(and the New Testament) are wrong. That's highly presumptuous on your part, I would say.

But as we all know by now, the Yankees did not invade the South to stop the atrocities you keep harping on.

 

At least you admit there were atrocities committed by the slave holders of the South. I commend you for that. Did Paul own slaves? If he did, did he beat them, starve them, kill them, etc?

I never said Paul was wrong and I was right and I would never claim such a thing. This doesn't even have anything to do with Paul, anyway. I am specifically referring tot he slaveholders who legitimized slavery by claiming that The Scriptures, God's Holy Word, gives them the right to enslave a person and beat them, and do as you please with them. This is hypocrisy and we all know what Jesus said about hyocrites. Just like the Phasisees, the slaveholders read the Scriptures but didn't understand them. That was the whole point of my previous post. Douglas was pointing out the hyocrisy of the slaveholder's "Christian" religion.

One of the major points that Douglass made was that slavery brutalizes the slave AND the slaveholder. According to Douglass, slavery ate at the slaveholder's heart and filled it with anger and rage. In one of the chapters he speaks about the mistress of one of his masters. This is what he said about her when he first met her:

"And here I saw what I have never seen before: it was a white face beaming with the most kindly emotions: it was the face of my new mistress, Sophia Auld. I wish I could descibe the rapture that flashed through my soul as I beheld it. It was a new and strange sight for me, brightening up my pathway with the light of happiness."

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An Anmerican Slave

Mrs. Auld had never owned a slave before so when she received Douglass at the time (he was 7 years od) she treated him almost like a son. Unfortunately, she began to change rapidly. On the very next page here is how Douglass describes her change:

"But alas, but this kind heart had but short time to remain such. The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already working in her hands, and soon commensed its infernal work. That cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage; that voice, made off of sweet accord, changed to one of harsh and horrid accord, and that angelic face gave place to that of a demon."

So how can a Christian that is suppose to be filled with the Spirit of God, and follow the example of Jesus claim that they have a Biblical right to own slaves? Just because Paul doesn't condemn slavery, is not an affirmation that it is good. God gave dominion over all creation, not dominion over his fellow man.

 

Would you have told the Christian slaveowners in the 1st Century to free their slaves? Why or why not?

If you say you would have, then you saying the apostle Paul was wrong not to do so.

If you say you wouldn't have, then you your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

Paul didn't specifically say that slaves shouldn't be set free. You are arguing from silence and that is not a strong place to argue from. The point isn't whether Christians should free their slaves but by what right or authority do they have to have slaves in the first place.

 

And you're not?! Oh, please.

Just admit you have lost your argument before you look any sillier than you already have.

If they didn't have right or authority to have slaves, then why didn't the apostle Paul tell them so? Don't you see you have lost? You have dug yourself a hole. Stop digging and making it deeper. Try a different line of argument.

 

And you're not?! Oh, please.

Just admit you have lost your argument before you look any sillier than you already have.

If they didn't have right or authority to have slaves, then why didn't the apostle Paul tell them so? Don't you see you have lost? You have dug yourself a hole. Stop digging and making it deeper. Try a different line of argument. </font>[/QUOTE]You still haven't told me where the right or authority to have slaves comes from? I am asking you, KenH, not Paul. Are you saying that people do have the right to own slaves?

[ September 01, 2003, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: ChurchBoy ]

 

You'd get an "F" in logic class for that. Paul specifically sent Onesimus, a runaway slave, back to his Christian slaveholding master. He reminded Philemon that his slave was now also a "brother" since he was born again, but did his returning the slave to his bonds is defacto evidence. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you defending the right of "one" brother" to own another "brother"?

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You'd get an "F" in logic class for that. Paul specifically sent Onesimus, a runaway slave, back to his Christian slaveholding master. He reminded Philemon that his slave was now also a "brother" since he was born again, but did his returning the slave to his bonds is defacto evidence. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

In view of your gross mistakes in regard to large numbers of blacks serving as soldiers in the Confederate army, I am not sure you are quite the one to lecture anyone on the subject of logic. It is not logical to expect large numbers of blacks to fight in the Civil War, on the side of the south and yet somehow you fell for that false story. It seems that for some reason, you have a very kind disposition towards those who supported slavery and a very harsh attitude towards those who tried to end it. I don't think that it is at all appropriate or christian for you to use the words "scum" or the variations on that word, to describe abolitionists and others who tried to end slavery. You often challenge us to provide scripture to defend those who opposed slavery. Very well. I suppose you agree that the Golden Rule is a part of scripture. If so, that would clearly indicate that slavery is highly suspect since no sane person would volutarily opt for slavery. Somehow slavery is something that is good, in your opinion, for other people, but not for yourself. Opinions are opinions and everyone has one. But facts can be proven right or wrong, and I think you are spreading some information that is factually incorrect.

 

I was hoping to see some comments on this, but maybe everybody missed it. Did the slaves receive a false Christianity, and did Black Baptists therefore inherit a false Christianity?

 

I was hoping to see some comments on this, but maybe everybody missed it. Did the slaves receive a false Christianity, and did Black Baptists therefore inherit a false Christianity? </font>[/QUOTE]That, of course, was and is the assertion of the Black Muslims (Nation of Islam). They are being intellectually dishonest to say so, because Islam practiced enslavement of black Africans long before the West did, and they still practice it in some Muslim countries.

 

I believe that supporters of slavery in the period before and during the civil war were wicked people, in the same sense that Adolf Hitler was wicked. I also think that anyone living at the present time, who views slavery as harmless, is lacking in a moral sense. I don't know why the bible does not condemn slavery in direct terms, but regardless of that, I don't think there is any reason to abandon our moral sense now, and in most people, that moral sense condemns slavery. If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.

 

Regardless of the Bible? Do you then advocate making our "moral sense" authoritative rather than the Bible?

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Regardless of the Bible? Do you then advocate making our "moral sense" authoritative rather than the Bible? &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Possibly the bible was not intended to be authoritative for all people in all times. Maybe God has other ways of reaching people. Many of you assert as much when you say that God led you to do such and so. If a preacher goes to a mission field, he often says he was called there. Is it beyond doubt that God only uses the bible to persuade people that they should do something? Let me suggest that the idea that slavery is a sin and strongly contrary to christianity is a view that has a great deal of merit to it, even though there is not much support in the bible for it. I can't conceive of a just God supporting slavery.

 

Tanker, your post reveals there are vast differences in approach to this issue.

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Tanker, your post reveals there are vast differences in approach to this issue. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

If your interpretation of the bible contradicts a common sense viewpoint, then you should look to see if your interpretation is correct. Common sense thinking leads me to believe that slavery is a great wrong, an evil institution. Therefore if someone uses the bible to argue for slavery, then a close look should be given to their interpretation of the bible, since it could be flawed.

 

As could be your "common" sense.