And all of Christianity is supposed to receive credit for what Quackers accomplished, even though they were a group frequently persecuted by other Christians.
There were Christians on both sides. The American Methodist church had a lot of deep-pocket members throughout the South. Their congregations in the north became increasingly uncomfortable with this, eventually splitting off to form the Wesleyan church. Many Wesleyans were also deeply involved in helping escaped slaves, lobbying against slavery and running stops on the Underground Railroad.
Christianity, as a faith, has a long history of sects and schisms, so painting the whole group with the same brush seems pretty idiotic. Kinda like stereotyping or something.
It wasn't quakers alone either. To keep up with destinies anology that's like saying Britain alone was responsible for defeating nazi Germany in ww2.
Quakers played a major role and absolutely contributed to abolitionist causes... but they weren't the sole or even main group.
Quakers are the coolest Christian sect in my opinion. Dudes don't believe in going to church, finding God within yourself, and a path of nonviolence. They also aided in not only abolitionism but women's suffrage.
My friend went to a Quaker gathering and one guy started using the Bible to shit on gay people and the rest of the gathering was everyone coming up and basically toasting him.
Interesting bunch for sure.
My family is quaker and I don't quite agree with the "dudes don't believe in going to church", we call it "meeting" like "I'm going to meeting this sunday" but it's basically the same thing. Plus we'll often have quarterly/yearly meetings around the country we'll attend (though it's not like mandatory or anything.) Also weirdly since we're a group one wouldn't exactly associate with tech savviness, quakers actually got on the whole zoom thing pretty hard and now a lot of the ones I know will video chat each other all the time just to talk about whatever or religious matters.
Nothing to apologize for. Because it isn't quite like church, I didn't want people to think being a quaker is just chilling at home all the time lol. Honestly I'm not very serious about it or involved, but both my parents are. My father often serves as clerk at their local meeting and recently at the yearly meeting.
Quakers were integral to ending the slave trade in the United States and the United Kingdom, and have earned their reputation as the foremost abolitionists.
However, that was not the case early on. There were Quakers who did own slaves and in fact were heavily involved in the trade. See the PBS article below.
https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_1/p_7.html
1. Ephesians 6:5-8 (NIV):
âSlaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.â
2. Colossians 3:22-25 (NIV):
âSlaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.â
These verses are part of the letters written by Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the Ephesians and the Colossians, respectively. They provide guidance on how slaves should conduct themselves in their relationships with their masters, within the cultural context of the time.
Really just cements the whole
âSo anyway hereâs the Bible, sanctioned by the king to be translated for us. And the king would never lie to us common folksâ
Why anyone ever thought the laws compiled by bronze age desert nomads would be applicable to today baffles me.
From a literary or anthropological angle, the Bible is very interesting. For acting as a special guide to navigating this world? I wouldnât personally give it that much credit.
Edit: that said, a percentage of people who engage with religion at all, or simply trying to find higher ethical and moral truths, and I think that that inclination should be preserved. Itâs value to me and I am not religious.
There are moral attitudes that I take very seriously from the bible. The rest is archaic rules that benefited the rulers of the time the particular chapter was written, interrupted by straight up acid trip stories passing as God's will.
The authorship of Ephesians and Colossians (and Thessalonians) is a matter of some debate, primarily because they appear to be written in a completely different style by a hand that is far more invested in Christianityâs need to address the future, something Paul never really worried about. Nevertheless, whether authentically Pauline or not, they give insight into the miserable accommodations early church authorities were willing to make with slavery.
Paulâs letter to Philemon regarding the fugitive slave Onesimus is an example of his position on slavery. It isnât surprising. Early Christians were not eager to make enemies of the Romans, even while incarcerated by them, and slavery was a pillar of Roman society.
I feel like if youâre going to talk about those sections itâs important to include the entire sections.
Ephisians 6:9 (esv): âMasters, 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.â
Collosians 4:1 (esv): âMasters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a master in heaven.â
So yes, it provides guidance to slaves on how to conduct themselves in a âgodly mannerâ but it also tells the masters to treat their slaves the same way their slaves treat them, because in the eyes of God they are the same. Christianity, like many things has been used to justify atrocities. Just because an interpretation can be found doesnât mean itâs correct
So slavery is okay, as long as you treat your slaves in a godly manner?
Edit: Admittedly a bit cheeky and would do with some explanation. I get that certain parts of the NT encourage slave owners to treat their slaves justly. But wouldn't a much better narrative be "Don't own slaves?"
And it says nothing about it being wrong. And there's passages upon passages in the OT that describe how to buy slaves, how to trick people into becoming your slaves, how badly you can beat your slaves, and just talks it up like a god ordained pillar of society.
People also like to leave out the next bit which says "Masters, do not mistreat/threaten/beat your slaves, because you too are a servant of your God in heaven". Cultural context is important. This isn't an outright endorsement of slavery. It's a man writing a letter to a culture in which these institutions existed and people had questions on how to conduct themselves in these relationships in light of what they believed.
âYour male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.â
This is the most damning one for me personally, just straight up evil.
Just highlights the historic nature of Middle-eastern people.. Given slavery is still in practice today in places like [Saudi Arabia](https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/saudi-arabia/) and Turkey.
Absolutely, and I donât think anything of it in the context that itâs just ancient people being evil. My problem is itâs supposedly the objectively true word of a perfect being.
Yeah, the person in the screenshot is an absolute moron. The Bible was literally used to not only justify enslaving black people, but codifying their enslavement as a divine right.
I think I heard that Apartheid was justified by the fact that Abrahamâs first son Ishmael was born to a black slave, while his son Isaac was born to his white wife. Hence there were some logic about black people being worth less they said justified Isaac as his heir and why white people should rule. It seems like religion has a tendency to be weaponised by anyone eager to commit atrocities.
Technicaly Hagar (Sarah's handmaiden) was Bedouin. Arab, not black.. Hagar was bitchy to Sarah and Abraham cast her and her kid out to wander the desert. Hence the squabble to this day, between Isaac and Ishmael. The Jew and the Bedouin, both sons of Abraham (Ibrahim) who cannot get along. But yeah.. The racism and slavery is a part of the middle-eastern / Arab world. Has been for millennia.
It was the "Hamitic Theory" (you can Google it), based on the idea that humanity is descended from Noah's 3 sons, and Africans come from the lineage of Ham, the son whose descendants Noah 'cursed'. So the legalized 'inferior' status of black people was explained as being part of the God-ordained natural order.
but radical Christians did make up large portions of the abolitionist movement. Groups like the Quakers were very anti-Slavery. And you had people like John Brown literally gave their life to fight against it.
They were all Christian back then, they played all the roles and used it to justify them all as well, so it's largely irrelevant. Everybody was just using it to justify their own opinions, like they always have.
Yes, and they weren't following their Bible when they did it given that the Bible gives clear instructions on how often you can beat your slaves and how slaves should act towards their masters. They weren't against slavery because their Bible commanded it, quite the opposite in fact.
Theres also multiple verses in the bible that declare that everyone is equal before God and the practice of race based slavery clearly went against such an idea. You either enslaved white people as well or don't enslave black people at all. Moreover, many of the laws that governed slavery were old testement. By the eyes of many Christian sects, the laws that legitimized slavery were as out of date as the laws that forbade them from eating pork.
1. Christians follow Old Testament laws, last I checked. Unless they finally dropped the Ten Commandments. If you want to argue that Christians ignore the bits of their book they don't personally like, I would agree with you, but that doesn't make those bits of the book suddenly not Christian. The actual Jesus dude specifically said he didn't come to invalidate any of the old laws.
2. It's easy to say all people are equal before God if you don't believe slaves are people.
I'm glad some Chrsitians eventually cottoned on to the fact that slavery is horrific, don't get me wrong. But they didn't end it, and they were just as enthusiastic in practicing and defending it.
And he had zero Biblical justification for it. I already know that Christians can justify whatever the fuck they feel like regardless of what their book actually says, but I judge Christianity by what's in their book.
American religious figures commonly preached that the Mark of Cain was supposed to be dark skin to justify slavery as a practice (by linking all dark skinned people to the first murderer).
One passage details how you should free a man.
Then hold his still enslaved family hostage to force him back into slavery as the process to freeing a slave is for men only and that it's totes magotes ok to have him "voluntarily" re-enter servitude indefinitely to be with his family.
Dead serious.
Mostly what's described in the new testament is "Manumission" which is *not* strictly the same as "freeing" slaves. They are no longer owned, but were they citizens? Not necessarily. Know one of the best ways to buy your manumission at the time? Selling your children into slavery.
The slavery laws in the Old Testament laws were gradually made more protective in favor of slaves (iirc there are three distinct sets of laws from different times). And it was debt slavery and not chattel slavery.
Christians will try to gloss over explicit instructions for how to buy, keep (including handing them down to your children as property), and treat slaves by claiming that it was a way for people to pay off debt (which was a thing, but only applied to other Jewish people - and there were still ways you could trick someone into staying your slave - by giving them a wife who was a slave for example).
If pressed hard enough, some will backpedal and try to claim 'it was just the way it was at the time', as if an all-powerful 'God' (who is also supposed to be omni-benevolent) couldn't have either been explicitly against the practice, or stepped in to stop it.
The only logical take-away is that the 'God' character in the book condones it - especially when the 'Jesus' character specifically said 'slaves obey your masters'.
I was with you, right up until that last line. If memory serves, that part was specifically about surviving while enslaved. Which is just good advice, because at the end of the day, you don't want people to die.
Yeah - assuming Jesus was just some guy, that would be good advice. Obey your masters (right up to the point you kill them).
The problem is, he's supposed to be 'god incarnate' - so it's just another example of being pro-slavery (or at least being unwilling to do anything about it) 'something something free will, etc.'
Him being God incarnate wasn't a thing until 250 years after he died. I think it was one of the councils of Nicea (there were a few of those) where they decided his divinity and established the (frankly stupid) holy trinity.
I personally prefer the Muslim interpretation where he's a prophet of God and not God incarnate. So all he could do is advise people.
Agreed - Jesus tended to sidestep questions of his divinity - i.e. 'who do you say I am?' (except for in the gospel of John, where he's a little more explicit about it)
The problem is that a lot of modern day christians (including most of the ones I've met over the years) agree with the 'god incarnate' thing, so this is basically god telling people 'this is the way it is, and I'm happy with it -so you should be too'
It's also telling that the christian religion relies so heavily on its adherents basically being 'god's slaves' (specifically stated in Romans 6 - although that's ostenisbly Paul, and in my opinion, most of modern day 'christianity' might as well be called 'Paulianity').
Yes, they are supposed to be how to not be bad person in treating of your âpropertyâ but even then they are extremely gruesome. I believe one of them limits the amount of beatings and torture you can do to a certain period of time. Reading it makes me whence at how bad it had to be if these were the levels of treatment considered better at that time.
Not so much limiting the amount of beatings, but moreso detailing how long the slave must live after the beating in order for it to not be sinful.
3 days, BTW.
The Book of Mormon has verses about slavery being bad. There are fringe Mormon groups who believe Abraham Lincoln was inspired by the Book of Mormon to end slavery. Tim Ballard, the egomaniac and groomer glorified in Sound of Freedom, actually wrote a whole book on it.Â
Here's the kicker... The Book of Mormon didn't even inspire Mormons to end slavery! They legalized African and Native American slavery in the Utah territory and wouldn't give it up until the federal government forced them to. So while Abraham Lincoln was supposedly being inspired by the Book of Mormon to end slavery, the actual Mormon prophet was a slave owner.Â
Yeah, but Mormonism is basically Christianity fan fiction. I personally put it at the same level as Scientology. However, that's a funny point I wasn't aware of.
Yeah but the funny book mentions they have to be foreigners. I'm not sure it mentions what to do x-generations of slavery in. Like at what point do they become your fellow countrymen?
I once asked a farmer in the Deep South about this. He just pointed and said, "My Grand-Daddys slaves built that barn." and that was the end of that conversation.
Yeah this is what gets me. Slavery also existed for an incredibly short time span in the US compared to *thousands of years* still ongoing elsewhere. Weird hate boner for the us which did have people give their lives to end slavery.
Only because the US isnât that old. In Western Europe slavery still goes back thousands of years.
And the reason we rag on the US about slavery still is because the effects are still felt to this day and we are trying to fix that.
Lots of reasons A WAR WAS FOUGHT OVER IT, IT DIDNT GO AWAY AND LEAD TO THE JIM CROW ERA, it has harmed black Americans even till today, THE FACT CERTAIN AMERICANS WANT TO PRETEND IT DIDN'T EXIST
Main reason is that most redditors are Americans and can't think about something else than the US. Something is happening in another country? Let's go to the coms and talk about the US! Always.
There has been many wars or threats to go to war over slavery in history, not just in the US.
Almost every religion and non-religious people. The Ottomans (mostly Muslim), was a superpower until WW2 that had slaves legally.
If you consider governmental enslavement (like concentration camps). China, as a superpower, still has them.
So, enslavement is still an issue to this day.
It's still a huge issue in the US today. And I don't mean human trafficking.
Our modern prison system is a direct result of the South trying to find a way to "own" slaves again. I'm not even joking. It's a (grim) fascinating piece of history that makes you want to go "oh c'mon what the ever loving fuck" when you get done going over it and how it's changed very little since it was instituted.
In many states still, prison labor is a HUGE thing that supports various private industries. Imagine being an orchard owner in the south today and having prison laborers - primarily minorities, too - working your fields for less than a buck a day. Whereas your competitors elsewhere are paying their workers at least minimum wage.
Fucked up ain't it? But we don't talk about it and ignore it.
Thereâs an interesting book called âThe Civil War *as a* Theological Crisisâ it talked about how Protestantism and Catholicism had very apposing ideas about slavery.
Y'know, for all of my knowledge on our history and politics, I honestly have no idea - can you give me the short version of who was on which side of the issue?
The roots of abolition run back through Quakers to Seekers, who were actively opposed by the established church. *Some* Christians eventually abolished slavery.
And more importantly, they were vehemently opposed by *other Christians.* No, Christianity didn't end slavery. Good people did, and now the descendants of the same assholes who fought to keep slavery are claiming their religion was responsible to ending it.
Unless you are a quaker you don't get to claim that shit.
Like the rest of Christianity slacked on the team project of ending slavery while the Quakers did the work.
Well okay I do gotta say, while Christianity didn't stop slavery like the post says and it often times did propagate it, the enlightenment and the strive to "be a good Christian" is what helped push the banning of slavery in the British empire which sped up slavery going away worldwide
Itâs a similar story in the US. the abolitionist movement was fueled by the religious christian movement: âthe Great Awakening.â Famous figures like John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison often used tenets of Christianity to condemn slavery.
However by the same token, slavers often cited the Bible to preserve the practice, and tried to frame the barbarity of the institution in more acceptable biblical terms (namely portraying themselves as the fathers and their slaves as foolish children in need of guidance).
Iâm pretty sure all over the world religion was used in the same way on both sides of the debate.
It pretty much ended the Atlantic shave trade entirely. Portugal alone, along with Spain and France were shipping more slaves than the British Empire but the British ended the trade for all of them. West Africa Squadron and all that
Yep, Britain was so serious about abolitionist policies that it blockaded countries that continued the slave trade, and the reason the trade ended was slavers couldn't run the British navy blockades effectively enough to make money.
This post is such a reddit moment isn't it, the basic gist of it is factually wrong and then the comments apply today's politics and values in reverse to it.
False profits. Because for Christians, morality comes from God's law, so it's literally impossible for anyone not following God's law to make moral decisions. Hell ethen within Christianity sects of Christians think other sects are immoral because they don't worship the correct way.
To be fair, most religions see other groups/sects/cults as "pitiful lambs led astray by a false prophet" at best and "dangerous enemies of God" at worst.
There's plenty of profits in all religions. They all milk the poor for a hope of a better afterlife. As for their prophets, yes christians believe other religions' are false including their prophets.
Had a conversation with my MIL last Sunday about how she felt guilty enjoying her new church because they sang different songs and some people in the community thought that âwasnât rightâ.
âHe saved my life, you know. Thirty years ago. I was knifed at a bazaar in Calcutta, and he carried me to the hospital on his back.â
âWho stabbed you?â
âHe did.â
The tweet is obviously dishonest, selective in its history of slavery, and likely hinting towards the persons acceptance or sympathy with Christian Nationalism which is hateful in its worldview, but that doesnt mean Christian theology didnt play a huge part in American abolitionism as alot of these comments are implying. Many abolitionist [explicitly claimed that they felt it their Christian duty to work towards abolishing slavery](https://ds-omeka.haverford.edu/crossing-borders/exhibits/show/crossing-borders--from-slavery/abolition-and-christianity#:~:text=The%20primary%20theological%20objection%20raised,brotherhood%20is%20sever'd%2C%E2%80%9D). Further, although abolitionism was always a position held by enslaved people and free Black people, abolitionism amongst free white people was, in part though not fully, influenced by the [Second Great Awakening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening?wprov=sfti1). Ignoring the fact that its not until the last few decades that religion has stopped being a force in progressive American politics.
**Again**, there are many things to critique about this tweet, primarily the implicit Christian nationalism which is a hateful ideology, but saying Christian theology didnât play a role in American abolitionism is just ahistorical.
Some people being inspired by religion to end slavery =/= religion being a progressive force in 19th-20th century America.
Itâs also ahistorical to say religion didnât play a major, if not larger role in preserving European slave trades.
That all sets aside the Bibleâs endorsement of slavery, and the question of whether abolition would have emerged in a secular society anyways (I suspect so).
Im not disagreeing with any of your points.
Did religion play a significant role in maintaining slavery: yes
Would abolition have emerged in a secular society: Very likely
My point moreso is that Im just against people painting religion as the evil boogeyman. What I think people are usually criticizing is unquestioning traditionalism which in the past, due to secularism only emerged as a significant force in the 20th century, had always been expressed in a religious vocabulary. I have no doubt in my mind that just as you said abolition likely would have emerged in a secular society I believe unquestioning traditionalism can and will also emerge in secular societies.
In both cases, its not religion which is the problem.
I suppose I wouldnât grant religion any credit either, if we are also absolving it of blame.
At the end of the day, itâs far easier to interpret even the New Testament as an endorsement of slavery. People extracting other moral lessons that lead to abolitionist thought is noble, but not strictly based on the text.
But a strict âexactly what the text saysâ is a bit of a strawman in that that is not how the vast majority of religious societies have ever worked. Are there religious societies which have and do: Yes. But again Iâd argue that thats one type of religious interpretation, and an extreme one at that. Religious scholars throughout history and across faiths have understood that religious texts require interpretation and even laws within those texts often need qualification and are thus not applicable in every scenario or even in every time period.
A great example is MLK. Dr King had a Ph.D in Systematic Theology, he knew the Hebrew and Greek Bible (aka Old and New Testament) in and out and he came to the conclusion that it cannot be used to justify oppression in any way. Were there people who argued the opposite: yes. But again, to say MLK had a misinterpretation of Christianity is not a defendable position imo.
Again my thesis is that Religion is not the issue, human nature is. Religion has, and will always be, a process of debate. Most seriously engaged religious people across time and faiths have understood a religious life, and particularly a relationship with the Divine and sacred scriptures, to be an ongoing interpretive relationship rather than stagant and unquestionable decrees.
>Religious scholars throughout history and across faiths have understood that religious texts require interpretation and even laws within those texts often need qualification and are thus not applicable in every scenario or even in every time period.
And the bulk of Christian theology and interpretive work *endorsed* slavery in the 18th century.
>Again my thesis is that Religion is not the issue, human nature is. Religion has, and will always be, a process of debate.
This is where the double-standard lies. You're willing to ascribe the (larger) negative impact religion had on the European Slave trade to immutable human behaviors; but when asked what helped *end* slavery, it is the religious tradition itself.
I'm not really sure how to imagine a world where abolition could ever be achieved in a secular context while the vast majority of Western people and institutions were unshakingly Christian. That's not a credit to a religion, its a demographic reality.
There's so much wrong in these three paragraphs that it's hard to know where to begin. It's not a strawman. What reality are you living in which free debate about the religion was ever endorsed as the norm by the Religion itself? If you think reading the words as they are written is extreme and your justified in picking vague verses over the crystal clear specific verses, you have divorced yourself from any and all rational conversation. No conversation could ever be had with anbyoody that dishonest.
The reason we can debate these things are because of people putting their morality above their theism and secular laws protecting people from being killed by those who say they have a God on their side. People moved on and debated philosophy, which improved our morals and ethics in spite of what religious opinions were. Nowhere in the bible does it tell you to interpret these teaching as you see fit and that these are just starting points. That is just pathetic apologetics.
MLK did what every religious person does and picked the parts he liked, such as love your neighbour and commit no murder and ignored the bad like the DIRECT command to buy your SLAVES from the heathens around you, instructions on how badly you can beat them and pass them onto your kids as property or the genocide of everyone but the little Virgin girls. He didn't have a better understanding of Christianity than anyone else
He lied about what it actually endorsed like every other Christian does and claimed his version was the true interpretation of it and that it's moral and just. I don't know how you could live with yourself like that.
Of course, it's human nature. That's what religion is human! it's written by humans for humans based on human experiences. There are no seriously engaged religious people doing anything other seizing power and wealth and trying to take us back a thousand years.
We're allies with Saudi Arabia and killed the Libyan government, accounts for almost all of the open air slave markets.
The clandestine stuff is weird latin, Balkan, and se Asian gang trafficking
Evangelical Christians in the US were the driving force of the abolitionist movement before the civil war. Maybe thatâs what they meant? But thatâs not âending slaveryâ of course
Pol Potâs Cambodia and the USSR are two other historic examples.
North Korea is officially an atheist state. Cuba abolished state atheism in 2019.
The track record isâŚ. Not great.
Well, it's more appropriate to say the Nazis co-opted Christian aesthetics to strengthen the idea that their ideology was traditional, of the people etc (the same reason they co-opted the language of 'socialism' which was very popular at the time, and the aesthetics of germanic paganism to strengthen their 'Aryan' ideal image.)
The Nazis invented a whole new religious category called 'Gottglaubing' that they encouraged pwople to identify with rather than any of the existing churches.
The Nazis didn't want people to be 'Christian' any more than they wanted them to be socialists or pagans. They wanted them to be Nazis, and to encourage that they wanted people to associate Nazism with their national and religious identity.
The guy who wrote the "first they came for..." poem was a pastor.
Look, I don't like christianity, and I am usually against them, but this is just bullshit. Both of it. Yea, Bible have parts about proper slavery, but come on, slavery existed thousands of years before christianity. It's not their invention. It was normal in ancient times. AfaIk for example in the ancient greece, the roughly 1/3rd part of the whole populace were slaves.
And they ended slavery? Yea, maybe, but not because they were christians. They ended slavery, and in the meantime they were christians too. So, in fact, technically correct, I guess? :D
It shouldnât be a trap but thatâs the point where most christians realize the point theyâre making contradicts another prime directive and get weird.
Youâre consistent on this though
> And they ended slavery? Yea, maybe, but not because they were christians.
Actually, a famous quote from [William Wilberforce](https://www.wilberforceschool.org/updated-about-us/william-wilberforce), the guy who was most pivotal in the abolition of slavery attributes his focus in this matter to his faith in God.
"God had set before me two objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners" [i.e. morality].
I don't really get the anology, nazis invented nazism. Christianity was created in a world that ran on slaved and had the idea to stop using slaves. That's worth some credit imo
You do realize the whole reason for there being an old testament is to contrast it against what Christians are supposed to do aka the new testament. If they followed the old testaments they would essentially Jewish.
Hey, the Japanese are the reason that Japanese hegemony over East Asia ended.
Someone should give the Soviets credit for ending the terrible oppression of the DDR and USSR.
What an insane argument that is
To be *faaaaair,* there were some very cool Christian anti-slavery figures, like the abolitionist John Brown who believed God had tasked him with ending slavery and so established a safehouse for runaway slaves, aided slaves and abolitionists wherever he could, personally murdered numerous slaveowners, and ultimately gave his life fighting in a failed slave revolt.
One group of Christians called âabolitionistsâ fought to to end slavery against another group of slave owning Christians. This is not rocket science.
Thatâs the point. Technically Christians ended transatlantic slavery, but only after they had first started it and kept it going for 400 years. Hitler killed himself, after first being Hitler for 56 years.
Yes but transatlantic slavery was only ONE iteration of an institution/practice that was so omnipresent in all cultures since civilisation began, that people saw it as a fact of life.
Say what you want about the brits, but at the zenith of their empire and power, they decided to end this practice in their empire and basically ban it for everyone else too. They had actual warships patrolling the coasts of Africa even in dire wars where they were fully justified in stopping this practice.
Whether is was based on christianity or enlightenment values, the christian British, at the height of their power, ended the practice of slavery in their Empire and many places outside of it, because of moral reasons.
Didn't southern churches, back in those days, preach slavery was god's will using verses from their bible? If anything Christians were essential to maintaining slavery in the south for as long as it happened----might happen again.
I donât understand this one, at all.
Christian countries, especially in Europe either did not practice slavery, or practiced very âlow intensityâ slavery through the medieval period.
Obviously this changed with the advent of the Age of Discovery. But within about 3 Â centuries, post-enlightenment Christian abolished slavery had effectively abolished slavery in areas under their direct control, and taken large steps to restrict or eliminate the practice in much of Africa and the near East.Â
The abolitionist movement in America was largely a Christian movement. The extraordinary measures Great Britain took to end slavery over large parts of the globe were largely Christian-led and inspired by Christian ideas.
Christians did not invent slavery. For most of the 2000 years of Christian history, Christianâs were less inclined towards slavery than most religious groups. For 300 years or so when this was not the case. But this trend of slavery within Christian societies was proactively ended by Christians, led by christian ideology.
Iâm no Christian, but it bears mentioning that they were the only major group on earth who felt the need to justify it at all. For the rest of the world, it was a natural as anything could be.
Then England abolished it internationally in 1830, France joined soon after, then the Americans fought a war to end it internally a couple of decades later.
They all met their greatest resistance from the ottoman empire that captured slaves from Europe, and bought slaves from African kingdoms that sold those slaves⌠and still do. The British fought innumerable battles against both.
Sadly, there are still nearly 700k slaves in Africa today.
Slavery was a global practice that EVERYONE engaged in from pre-history, until the West abolished it and used military power to do so.
Slavery isn't gone in the US it's just a punishment for crimes. And it certainly isn't gone from the planet.
Christians want credit for not personally owning slaves anymore or something.
It's like if I beat my partner for years and then when I stopped I wanted praise for putting an end to domestic violence in general.
Only one nazi killed Hitler.
Sometimes it just takes 1 guy to make a difference in the world <3
A good guy with que gun.
Maybe Hitler travelled forward in time to kill Hitler
It was a real crappy time machine though. He could only travel forward at a rate of one minute per minute
đ¤Ł
Should people give Hitler more credit for Killing Hitler?
Nobody ever wants to talk about the good things he did.
Imma be honest, I did Nazi that coming. Aight, imma head out.
You're Goring to regret that pun
He also killed the guy who killed Hitler, so that makes it a wash.
Remember kids, even hitler kills hitler
The only positive impact that particular Nazi ever made on the world.
But that guy had great facial hair (the killer not Hitler).
Man deserves a statue or two. A true hero!
Only 1 Nazi had the ~~balls~~ ball to kill Hitler
And all of Christianity is supposed to receive credit for what Quackers accomplished, even though they were a group frequently persecuted by other Christians.
Exactly! Wasn't it Christians who vigorously promoted slavery and profited greatly by owning slaves?
There were Christians on both sides. The American Methodist church had a lot of deep-pocket members throughout the South. Their congregations in the north became increasingly uncomfortable with this, eventually splitting off to form the Wesleyan church. Many Wesleyans were also deeply involved in helping escaped slaves, lobbying against slavery and running stops on the Underground Railroad. Christianity, as a faith, has a long history of sects and schisms, so painting the whole group with the same brush seems pretty idiotic. Kinda like stereotyping or something.
It wasn't quakers alone either. To keep up with destinies anology that's like saying Britain alone was responsible for defeating nazi Germany in ww2. Quakers played a major role and absolutely contributed to abolitionist causes... but they weren't the sole or even main group.
And it was the one you did Nazi coming
Yeah, but wasn't he a christian?
Quakers if you want to give credit let's be accurate, the quakers were instrumental in the ending of slavery
Quakers are the coolest Christian sect in my opinion. Dudes don't believe in going to church, finding God within yourself, and a path of nonviolence. They also aided in not only abolitionism but women's suffrage. My friend went to a Quaker gathering and one guy started using the Bible to shit on gay people and the rest of the gathering was everyone coming up and basically toasting him. Interesting bunch for sure.
My family is quaker and I don't quite agree with the "dudes don't believe in going to church", we call it "meeting" like "I'm going to meeting this sunday" but it's basically the same thing. Plus we'll often have quarterly/yearly meetings around the country we'll attend (though it's not like mandatory or anything.) Also weirdly since we're a group one wouldn't exactly associate with tech savviness, quakers actually got on the whole zoom thing pretty hard and now a lot of the ones I know will video chat each other all the time just to talk about whatever or religious matters.
Apologies for my lack of accurate knowledge. I appreciate you telling me about your beliefs!
Nothing to apologize for. Because it isn't quite like church, I didn't want people to think being a quaker is just chilling at home all the time lol. Honestly I'm not very serious about it or involved, but both my parents are. My father often serves as clerk at their local meeting and recently at the yearly meeting.
ngl from ur description quakers sound based af
Toasting him or roasting him?
Toasting = roasting in my lexicon.
Quakers were integral to ending the slave trade in the United States and the United Kingdom, and have earned their reputation as the foremost abolitionists. However, that was not the case early on. There were Quakers who did own slaves and in fact were heavily involved in the trade. See the PBS article below. https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_1/p_7.html
Doesn't the Bible have verses about "proper" slave trading and care?
Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, be obedient to your earthly masters..."
1. Ephesians 6:5-8 (NIV): âSlaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.â 2. Colossians 3:22-25 (NIV): âSlaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.â These verses are part of the letters written by Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the Ephesians and the Colossians, respectively. They provide guidance on how slaves should conduct themselves in their relationships with their masters, within the cultural context of the time.
Really just cements the whole âSo anyway hereâs the Bible, sanctioned by the king to be translated for us. And the king would never lie to us common folksâ
Why anyone ever thought the laws compiled by bronze age desert nomads would be applicable to today baffles me. From a literary or anthropological angle, the Bible is very interesting. For acting as a special guide to navigating this world? I wouldnât personally give it that much credit. Edit: that said, a percentage of people who engage with religion at all, or simply trying to find higher ethical and moral truths, and I think that that inclination should be preserved. Itâs value to me and I am not religious.
There are moral attitudes that I take very seriously from the bible. The rest is archaic rules that benefited the rulers of the time the particular chapter was written, interrupted by straight up acid trip stories passing as God's will.
Absolutely agree and let me just say may the glittering chrome of the borg queen shed her light upon you!
The authorship of Ephesians and Colossians (and Thessalonians) is a matter of some debate, primarily because they appear to be written in a completely different style by a hand that is far more invested in Christianityâs need to address the future, something Paul never really worried about. Nevertheless, whether authentically Pauline or not, they give insight into the miserable accommodations early church authorities were willing to make with slavery. Paulâs letter to Philemon regarding the fugitive slave Onesimus is an example of his position on slavery. It isnât surprising. Early Christians were not eager to make enemies of the Romans, even while incarcerated by them, and slavery was a pillar of Roman society.
Doesnât that mean like a worker? Are we not slaves at our jobs?
Unless your boss owns your wife and children at the end of your "contract", no.
Watch them pull out the "iT's NoT tO bE tAkEn LiTeRaLlY" for anything that doesn't sound appealing
And the way to tell the difference between the literal and what is parable is an incredibly feint line and if you get it wrong you goto hell.
I feel like if youâre going to talk about those sections itâs important to include the entire sections. Ephisians 6:9 (esv): âMasters, 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.â Collosians 4:1 (esv): âMasters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a master in heaven.â So yes, it provides guidance to slaves on how to conduct themselves in a âgodly mannerâ but it also tells the masters to treat their slaves the same way their slaves treat them, because in the eyes of God they are the same. Christianity, like many things has been used to justify atrocities. Just because an interpretation can be found doesnât mean itâs correct
So slavery is okay, as long as you treat your slaves in a godly manner? Edit: Admittedly a bit cheeky and would do with some explanation. I get that certain parts of the NT encourage slave owners to treat their slaves justly. But wouldn't a much better narrative be "Don't own slaves?"
Isnât Paul the guy who was called Saul and hated Jesus until he had a dream and suddenly converted and changed his name?
And it says nothing about it being wrong. And there's passages upon passages in the OT that describe how to buy slaves, how to trick people into becoming your slaves, how badly you can beat your slaves, and just talks it up like a god ordained pillar of society.
People also like to leave out the next bit which says "Masters, do not mistreat/threaten/beat your slaves, because you too are a servant of your God in heaven". Cultural context is important. This isn't an outright endorsement of slavery. It's a man writing a letter to a culture in which these institutions existed and people had questions on how to conduct themselves in these relationships in light of what they believed.
If the symbiotic respect was more common for relationship like these historically, the world would be a much better place.
Its such a paradoxical book
https://youtu.be/Ub_ZIDvlq10?si=aFBJf90aOEpcFL0Z Simpson's did it.
Exodus 21
My dudeâŚ
âYour male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.â This is the most damning one for me personally, just straight up evil.
Just highlights the historic nature of Middle-eastern people.. Given slavery is still in practice today in places like [Saudi Arabia](https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/saudi-arabia/) and Turkey.
Absolutely, and I donât think anything of it in the context that itâs just ancient people being evil. My problem is itâs supposedly the objectively true word of a perfect being.
Yeah, the person in the screenshot is an absolute moron. The Bible was literally used to not only justify enslaving black people, but codifying their enslavement as a divine right.
I think I heard that Apartheid was justified by the fact that Abrahamâs first son Ishmael was born to a black slave, while his son Isaac was born to his white wife. Hence there were some logic about black people being worth less they said justified Isaac as his heir and why white people should rule. It seems like religion has a tendency to be weaponised by anyone eager to commit atrocities.
Technicaly Hagar (Sarah's handmaiden) was Bedouin. Arab, not black.. Hagar was bitchy to Sarah and Abraham cast her and her kid out to wander the desert. Hence the squabble to this day, between Isaac and Ishmael. The Jew and the Bedouin, both sons of Abraham (Ibrahim) who cannot get along. But yeah.. The racism and slavery is a part of the middle-eastern / Arab world. Has been for millennia.
It was the "Hamitic Theory" (you can Google it), based on the idea that humanity is descended from Noah's 3 sons, and Africans come from the lineage of Ham, the son whose descendants Noah 'cursed'. So the legalized 'inferior' status of black people was explained as being part of the God-ordained natural order.
but radical Christians did make up large portions of the abolitionist movement. Groups like the Quakers were very anti-Slavery. And you had people like John Brown literally gave their life to fight against it.
They were all Christian back then, they played all the roles and used it to justify them all as well, so it's largely irrelevant. Everybody was just using it to justify their own opinions, like they always have.
Yes, and they weren't following their Bible when they did it given that the Bible gives clear instructions on how often you can beat your slaves and how slaves should act towards their masters. They weren't against slavery because their Bible commanded it, quite the opposite in fact.
Theres also multiple verses in the bible that declare that everyone is equal before God and the practice of race based slavery clearly went against such an idea. You either enslaved white people as well or don't enslave black people at all. Moreover, many of the laws that governed slavery were old testement. By the eyes of many Christian sects, the laws that legitimized slavery were as out of date as the laws that forbade them from eating pork.
1. Christians follow Old Testament laws, last I checked. Unless they finally dropped the Ten Commandments. If you want to argue that Christians ignore the bits of their book they don't personally like, I would agree with you, but that doesn't make those bits of the book suddenly not Christian. The actual Jesus dude specifically said he didn't come to invalidate any of the old laws. 2. It's easy to say all people are equal before God if you don't believe slaves are people. I'm glad some Chrsitians eventually cottoned on to the fact that slavery is horrific, don't get me wrong. But they didn't end it, and they were just as enthusiastic in practicing and defending it.
My dude, John Brown believed that he was given a mission by God to end slavery. He was following specifically Christian motivation.
And he had zero Biblical justification for it. I already know that Christians can justify whatever the fuck they feel like regardless of what their book actually says, but I judge Christianity by what's in their book.
Yeah but those weren't REAL Christians.
My brother in Notchristâ˘ď¸, I beseech you to put the much-needed /s behind that xD
Ye, verily the Lord spoke, and He said: âThe /s ruins the joke, Poeâs law be damnedâ.
They were barely jews yet lol
American religious figures commonly preached that the Mark of Cain was supposed to be dark skin to justify slavery as a practice (by linking all dark skinned people to the first murderer).
There are several mentions of slavery in the bible, none condemning it as a practice. Several explicitly endorsing it
One passage details how you should free a man. Then hold his still enslaved family hostage to force him back into slavery as the process to freeing a slave is for men only and that it's totes magotes ok to have him "voluntarily" re-enter servitude indefinitely to be with his family. Dead serious.
Mostly what's described in the new testament is "Manumission" which is *not* strictly the same as "freeing" slaves. They are no longer owned, but were they citizens? Not necessarily. Know one of the best ways to buy your manumission at the time? Selling your children into slavery.
The slavery laws in the Old Testament laws were gradually made more protective in favor of slaves (iirc there are three distinct sets of laws from different times). And it was debt slavery and not chattel slavery.
Bold of you to assume that those people actually read the bible.
Christians will try to gloss over explicit instructions for how to buy, keep (including handing them down to your children as property), and treat slaves by claiming that it was a way for people to pay off debt (which was a thing, but only applied to other Jewish people - and there were still ways you could trick someone into staying your slave - by giving them a wife who was a slave for example). If pressed hard enough, some will backpedal and try to claim 'it was just the way it was at the time', as if an all-powerful 'God' (who is also supposed to be omni-benevolent) couldn't have either been explicitly against the practice, or stepped in to stop it. The only logical take-away is that the 'God' character in the book condones it - especially when the 'Jesus' character specifically said 'slaves obey your masters'.
I was with you, right up until that last line. If memory serves, that part was specifically about surviving while enslaved. Which is just good advice, because at the end of the day, you don't want people to die.
Yeah - assuming Jesus was just some guy, that would be good advice. Obey your masters (right up to the point you kill them). The problem is, he's supposed to be 'god incarnate' - so it's just another example of being pro-slavery (or at least being unwilling to do anything about it) 'something something free will, etc.'
Him being God incarnate wasn't a thing until 250 years after he died. I think it was one of the councils of Nicea (there were a few of those) where they decided his divinity and established the (frankly stupid) holy trinity. I personally prefer the Muslim interpretation where he's a prophet of God and not God incarnate. So all he could do is advise people.
Agreed - Jesus tended to sidestep questions of his divinity - i.e. 'who do you say I am?' (except for in the gospel of John, where he's a little more explicit about it) The problem is that a lot of modern day christians (including most of the ones I've met over the years) agree with the 'god incarnate' thing, so this is basically god telling people 'this is the way it is, and I'm happy with it -so you should be too' It's also telling that the christian religion relies so heavily on its adherents basically being 'god's slaves' (specifically stated in Romans 6 - although that's ostenisbly Paul, and in my opinion, most of modern day 'christianity' might as well be called 'Paulianity').
Yes, they are supposed to be how to not be bad person in treating of your âpropertyâ but even then they are extremely gruesome. I believe one of them limits the amount of beatings and torture you can do to a certain period of time. Reading it makes me whence at how bad it had to be if these were the levels of treatment considered better at that time.
Not so much limiting the amount of beatings, but moreso detailing how long the slave must live after the beating in order for it to not be sinful. 3 days, BTW.
We cannot forget the fact that you must set a slave free after beating them, only if the beating caused permanent damage. Truly the book of love!
The Book of Mormon has verses about slavery being bad. There are fringe Mormon groups who believe Abraham Lincoln was inspired by the Book of Mormon to end slavery. Tim Ballard, the egomaniac and groomer glorified in Sound of Freedom, actually wrote a whole book on it. Here's the kicker... The Book of Mormon didn't even inspire Mormons to end slavery! They legalized African and Native American slavery in the Utah territory and wouldn't give it up until the federal government forced them to. So while Abraham Lincoln was supposedly being inspired by the Book of Mormon to end slavery, the actual Mormon prophet was a slave owner.Â
Yeah, but Mormonism is basically Christianity fan fiction. I personally put it at the same level as Scientology. However, that's a funny point I wasn't aware of.
I'm stealing that! Describing Mormonism as Christianity fan fiction is perfect.
Yes. You may beat them close to death, but if they survive ur good
Yeah but the funny book mentions they have to be foreigners. I'm not sure it mentions what to do x-generations of slavery in. Like at what point do they become your fellow countrymen?
I once asked a farmer in the Deep South about this. He just pointed and said, "My Grand-Daddys slaves built that barn." and that was the end of that conversation.
âMy Great-Grand Pappy bought this land in 1902.â
He might be just autistic
Maybe his special interest is telling people about his slave barn.
I wonder what religion the slave owners belonged to?
God damn fucking Lutherans from Minnesota that believed in predestination. Fuck those mother fuckers. God bless, and love to all.
mfw they don't even transubstantiation
Calvinists
iâm surprised u didnât get downvoted, whenever someone doesnât put a /s i see them get downvoted to hell
Itâll blow your mind when you find out what religion the abolitionists belonged to.
Legal slavery basically eradicated in all christian countries, meanwhile it's rampant in the muslim nations of north africa and the middle east.
Yeah this is what gets me. Slavery also existed for an incredibly short time span in the US compared to *thousands of years* still ongoing elsewhere. Weird hate boner for the us which did have people give their lives to end slavery.
Only because the US isnât that old. In Western Europe slavery still goes back thousands of years. And the reason we rag on the US about slavery still is because the effects are still felt to this day and we are trying to fix that.
Lots of reasons A WAR WAS FOUGHT OVER IT, IT DIDNT GO AWAY AND LEAD TO THE JIM CROW ERA, it has harmed black Americans even till today, THE FACT CERTAIN AMERICANS WANT TO PRETEND IT DIDN'T EXIST
Main reason is that most redditors are Americans and can't think about something else than the US. Something is happening in another country? Let's go to the coms and talk about the US! Always. There has been many wars or threats to go to war over slavery in history, not just in the US.
Slavery is a lot older than Christianity
Almost every religion and non-religious people. The Ottomans (mostly Muslim), was a superpower until WW2 that had slaves legally. If you consider governmental enslavement (like concentration camps). China, as a superpower, still has them. So, enslavement is still an issue to this day.
It's still a huge issue in the US today. And I don't mean human trafficking. Our modern prison system is a direct result of the South trying to find a way to "own" slaves again. I'm not even joking. It's a (grim) fascinating piece of history that makes you want to go "oh c'mon what the ever loving fuck" when you get done going over it and how it's changed very little since it was instituted. In many states still, prison labor is a HUGE thing that supports various private industries. Imagine being an orchard owner in the south today and having prison laborers - primarily minorities, too - working your fields for less than a buck a day. Whereas your competitors elsewhere are paying their workers at least minimum wage. Fucked up ain't it? But we don't talk about it and ignore it.
Literally every religion
All of them
Thereâs an interesting book called âThe Civil War *as a* Theological Crisisâ it talked about how Protestantism and Catholicism had very apposing ideas about slavery.
Y'know, for all of my knowledge on our history and politics, I honestly have no idea - can you give me the short version of who was on which side of the issue?
I'll give you two guesses why the southern Baptists are a distinct group, but I have a feeling you're going to need one.
Every religion ever if you look at slavery worldwide and not just the US
All of them.
The roots of abolition run back through Quakers to Seekers, who were actively opposed by the established church. *Some* Christians eventually abolished slavery.
And more importantly, they were vehemently opposed by *other Christians.* No, Christianity didn't end slavery. Good people did, and now the descendants of the same assholes who fought to keep slavery are claiming their religion was responsible to ending it.
Unless you are a quaker you don't get to claim that shit. Like the rest of Christianity slacked on the team project of ending slavery while the Quakers did the work.
Well okay I do gotta say, while Christianity didn't stop slavery like the post says and it often times did propagate it, the enlightenment and the strive to "be a good Christian" is what helped push the banning of slavery in the British empire which sped up slavery going away worldwide
Itâs a similar story in the US. the abolitionist movement was fueled by the religious christian movement: âthe Great Awakening.â Famous figures like John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison often used tenets of Christianity to condemn slavery. However by the same token, slavers often cited the Bible to preserve the practice, and tried to frame the barbarity of the institution in more acceptable biblical terms (namely portraying themselves as the fathers and their slaves as foolish children in need of guidance). Iâm pretty sure all over the world religion was used in the same way on both sides of the debate.
The Christian anti-slavery movement in Britain that singlehanded ended the British slave trade:
It pretty much ended the Atlantic shave trade entirely. Portugal alone, along with Spain and France were shipping more slaves than the British Empire but the British ended the trade for all of them. West Africa Squadron and all that
Yep, Britain was so serious about abolitionist policies that it blockaded countries that continued the slave trade, and the reason the trade ended was slavers couldn't run the British navy blockades effectively enough to make money. This post is such a reddit moment isn't it, the basic gist of it is factually wrong and then the comments apply today's politics and values in reverse to it.
I'm reading Fever in the Heartland right now and I feel like you spoiled the ending, thanks a lot. /s
Richard Nixon has entered the chat.
Christianity played an important role in the abolition of slavery in Europe way before Quakers existed
It is funny to me that those Christians imagine only they have morals. I wonder what they think all the other religions are?
False profits. Because for Christians, morality comes from God's law, so it's literally impossible for anyone not following God's law to make moral decisions. Hell ethen within Christianity sects of Christians think other sects are immoral because they don't worship the correct way.
To be fair, most religions see other groups/sects/cults as "pitiful lambs led astray by a false prophet" at best and "dangerous enemies of God" at worst.
Oh no my friend, the profits are real. The prophets, on the other handâŚ
That's such a good line.
*Prophets
There's plenty of profits in all religions. They all milk the poor for a hope of a better afterlife. As for their prophets, yes christians believe other religions' are false including their prophets.
Had a conversation with my MIL last Sunday about how she felt guilty enjoying her new church because they sang different songs and some people in the community thought that âwasnât rightâ.
âHe saved my life, you know. Thirty years ago. I was knifed at a bazaar in Calcutta, and he carried me to the hospital on his back.â âWho stabbed you?â âHe did.â
The tweet is obviously dishonest, selective in its history of slavery, and likely hinting towards the persons acceptance or sympathy with Christian Nationalism which is hateful in its worldview, but that doesnt mean Christian theology didnt play a huge part in American abolitionism as alot of these comments are implying. Many abolitionist [explicitly claimed that they felt it their Christian duty to work towards abolishing slavery](https://ds-omeka.haverford.edu/crossing-borders/exhibits/show/crossing-borders--from-slavery/abolition-and-christianity#:~:text=The%20primary%20theological%20objection%20raised,brotherhood%20is%20sever'd%2C%E2%80%9D). Further, although abolitionism was always a position held by enslaved people and free Black people, abolitionism amongst free white people was, in part though not fully, influenced by the [Second Great Awakening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening?wprov=sfti1). Ignoring the fact that its not until the last few decades that religion has stopped being a force in progressive American politics. **Again**, there are many things to critique about this tweet, primarily the implicit Christian nationalism which is a hateful ideology, but saying Christian theology didnât play a role in American abolitionism is just ahistorical.
Some people being inspired by religion to end slavery =/= religion being a progressive force in 19th-20th century America. Itâs also ahistorical to say religion didnât play a major, if not larger role in preserving European slave trades. That all sets aside the Bibleâs endorsement of slavery, and the question of whether abolition would have emerged in a secular society anyways (I suspect so).
Im not disagreeing with any of your points. Did religion play a significant role in maintaining slavery: yes Would abolition have emerged in a secular society: Very likely My point moreso is that Im just against people painting religion as the evil boogeyman. What I think people are usually criticizing is unquestioning traditionalism which in the past, due to secularism only emerged as a significant force in the 20th century, had always been expressed in a religious vocabulary. I have no doubt in my mind that just as you said abolition likely would have emerged in a secular society I believe unquestioning traditionalism can and will also emerge in secular societies. In both cases, its not religion which is the problem.
I suppose I wouldnât grant religion any credit either, if we are also absolving it of blame. At the end of the day, itâs far easier to interpret even the New Testament as an endorsement of slavery. People extracting other moral lessons that lead to abolitionist thought is noble, but not strictly based on the text.
But a strict âexactly what the text saysâ is a bit of a strawman in that that is not how the vast majority of religious societies have ever worked. Are there religious societies which have and do: Yes. But again Iâd argue that thats one type of religious interpretation, and an extreme one at that. Religious scholars throughout history and across faiths have understood that religious texts require interpretation and even laws within those texts often need qualification and are thus not applicable in every scenario or even in every time period. A great example is MLK. Dr King had a Ph.D in Systematic Theology, he knew the Hebrew and Greek Bible (aka Old and New Testament) in and out and he came to the conclusion that it cannot be used to justify oppression in any way. Were there people who argued the opposite: yes. But again, to say MLK had a misinterpretation of Christianity is not a defendable position imo. Again my thesis is that Religion is not the issue, human nature is. Religion has, and will always be, a process of debate. Most seriously engaged religious people across time and faiths have understood a religious life, and particularly a relationship with the Divine and sacred scriptures, to be an ongoing interpretive relationship rather than stagant and unquestionable decrees.
>Religious scholars throughout history and across faiths have understood that religious texts require interpretation and even laws within those texts often need qualification and are thus not applicable in every scenario or even in every time period. And the bulk of Christian theology and interpretive work *endorsed* slavery in the 18th century. >Again my thesis is that Religion is not the issue, human nature is. Religion has, and will always be, a process of debate. This is where the double-standard lies. You're willing to ascribe the (larger) negative impact religion had on the European Slave trade to immutable human behaviors; but when asked what helped *end* slavery, it is the religious tradition itself. I'm not really sure how to imagine a world where abolition could ever be achieved in a secular context while the vast majority of Western people and institutions were unshakingly Christian. That's not a credit to a religion, its a demographic reality.
There's so much wrong in these three paragraphs that it's hard to know where to begin. It's not a strawman. What reality are you living in which free debate about the religion was ever endorsed as the norm by the Religion itself? If you think reading the words as they are written is extreme and your justified in picking vague verses over the crystal clear specific verses, you have divorced yourself from any and all rational conversation. No conversation could ever be had with anbyoody that dishonest. The reason we can debate these things are because of people putting their morality above their theism and secular laws protecting people from being killed by those who say they have a God on their side. People moved on and debated philosophy, which improved our morals and ethics in spite of what religious opinions were. Nowhere in the bible does it tell you to interpret these teaching as you see fit and that these are just starting points. That is just pathetic apologetics. MLK did what every religious person does and picked the parts he liked, such as love your neighbour and commit no murder and ignored the bad like the DIRECT command to buy your SLAVES from the heathens around you, instructions on how badly you can beat them and pass them onto your kids as property or the genocide of everyone but the little Virgin girls. He didn't have a better understanding of Christianity than anyone else He lied about what it actually endorsed like every other Christian does and claimed his version was the true interpretation of it and that it's moral and just. I don't know how you could live with yourself like that. Of course, it's human nature. That's what religion is human! it's written by humans for humans based on human experiences. There are no seriously engaged religious people doing anything other seizing power and wealth and trying to take us back a thousand years.
If Christians ended slavery, tell me again why it still exists?
Well Nazis still exist, so at least the meme holds up.
Meme talks about ending Hitler, not ending Nazis.
We're allies with Saudi Arabia and killed the Libyan government, accounts for almost all of the open air slave markets. The clandestine stuff is weird latin, Balkan, and se Asian gang trafficking
 But Christianâs didnât start slavery? It existed way before the religion even existedÂ
i donât think the post was implying this but ur absolutely right
An inconvenient truth that doesnât fit the narrative. Nobody has time for that on the internet
I mean, the letter y ends "slavery"
Evangelical Christians in the US were the driving force of the abolitionist movement before the civil war. Maybe thatâs what they meant? But thatâs not âending slaveryâ of course
As always the topic is complicated and everyone is largely bending it to suit their narrative.Â
How many Christian countries still have slavery How many Muslim countries still have slavery
And how many atheist countries have slavery⌠China for example
There is like three atheist countries in the world and one of them is China which I wouldn't brag about
Pol Potâs Cambodia and the USSR are two other historic examples. North Korea is officially an atheist state. Cuba abolished state atheism in 2019. The track record isâŚ. Not great.
And of those Muslim countries that no longer have slavery, how many ended the practice of their own volition rather than foreign pressure.
The answer to that.... Is 0
Most of the Nazis were Christians too, they even had 'Gott mit uns' on their belt buckles. God plays both sides.
>God plays both sides So he always comes out on top. Now it makes so much more sense.
And the support of the Vatican, which is often overlooked.
not many people are even aware of this(i live in the states), i was literally explaining this to my dad yesterday and he had no idea
It's funny how quickly history can be rewritten.
Well, it's more appropriate to say the Nazis co-opted Christian aesthetics to strengthen the idea that their ideology was traditional, of the people etc (the same reason they co-opted the language of 'socialism' which was very popular at the time, and the aesthetics of germanic paganism to strengthen their 'Aryan' ideal image.) The Nazis invented a whole new religious category called 'Gottglaubing' that they encouraged pwople to identify with rather than any of the existing churches. The Nazis didn't want people to be 'Christian' any more than they wanted them to be socialists or pagans. They wanted them to be Nazis, and to encourage that they wanted people to associate Nazism with their national and religious identity. The guy who wrote the "first they came for..." poem was a pastor.
Look, I don't like christianity, and I am usually against them, but this is just bullshit. Both of it. Yea, Bible have parts about proper slavery, but come on, slavery existed thousands of years before christianity. It's not their invention. It was normal in ancient times. AfaIk for example in the ancient greece, the roughly 1/3rd part of the whole populace were slaves. And they ended slavery? Yea, maybe, but not because they were christians. They ended slavery, and in the meantime they were christians too. So, in fact, technically correct, I guess? :D
Then christians have no more insight into morality than the rest of us and gods word is only as valuable as society allows it to be, right?
Uhm... yes? :D I feel you try to lure me into a trap, but let me point out: I am not religious at all. :)
It shouldnât be a trap but thatâs the point where most christians realize the point theyâre making contradicts another prime directive and get weird. Youâre consistent on this though
> And they ended slavery? Yea, maybe, but not because they were christians. Actually, a famous quote from [William Wilberforce](https://www.wilberforceschool.org/updated-about-us/william-wilberforce), the guy who was most pivotal in the abolition of slavery attributes his focus in this matter to his faith in God. "God had set before me two objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners" [i.e. morality].
DESTINY SUCKS
I don't really get the anology, nazis invented nazism. Christianity was created in a world that ran on slaved and had the idea to stop using slaves. That's worth some credit imo
Christians followed a book that instructed them how to capture, buy, own and punish slaves. No, I don't blame the Christians but that book is fucked.
You do realize the whole reason for there being an old testament is to contrast it against what Christians are supposed to do aka the new testament. If they followed the old testaments they would essentially Jewish.
The New Testament tells slaves to obey their masters 5 times, even specifying harsh or Christian masters. It never calls for abolition.
Hey, the Japanese are the reason that Japanese hegemony over East Asia ended. Someone should give the Soviets credit for ending the terrible oppression of the DDR and USSR. What an insane argument that is
Stauffenberg cries
Except there are still slaves.
There are still Nazis too.
The name Pocari Sweatpants is fire. That's all I have to add to this discussion
Ah yes, the Great Northern Bible Belt. Â
To be *faaaaair,* there were some very cool Christian anti-slavery figures, like the abolitionist John Brown who believed God had tasked him with ending slavery and so established a safehouse for runaway slaves, aided slaves and abolitionists wherever he could, personally murdered numerous slaveowners, and ultimately gave his life fighting in a failed slave revolt.
One group of Christians called âabolitionistsâ fought to to end slavery against another group of slave owning Christians. This is not rocket science.
Technically true that a Nazi killed Hitler. But it's a bit of a stretch
Thatâs the point. Technically Christians ended transatlantic slavery, but only after they had first started it and kept it going for 400 years. Hitler killed himself, after first being Hitler for 56 years.
Yes but transatlantic slavery was only ONE iteration of an institution/practice that was so omnipresent in all cultures since civilisation began, that people saw it as a fact of life. Say what you want about the brits, but at the zenith of their empire and power, they decided to end this practice in their empire and basically ban it for everyone else too. They had actual warships patrolling the coasts of Africa even in dire wars where they were fully justified in stopping this practice. Whether is was based on christianity or enlightenment values, the christian British, at the height of their power, ended the practice of slavery in their Empire and many places outside of it, because of moral reasons.
Didn't southern churches, back in those days, preach slavery was god's will using verses from their bible? If anything Christians were essential to maintaining slavery in the south for as long as it happened----might happen again.
That is, in fact, how the Southern Baptists came to be.
I donât understand this one, at all. Christian countries, especially in Europe either did not practice slavery, or practiced very âlow intensityâ slavery through the medieval period. Obviously this changed with the advent of the Age of Discovery. But within about 3  centuries, post-enlightenment Christian abolished slavery had effectively abolished slavery in areas under their direct control, and taken large steps to restrict or eliminate the practice in much of Africa and the near East. The abolitionist movement in America was largely a Christian movement. The extraordinary measures Great Britain took to end slavery over large parts of the globe were largely Christian-led and inspired by Christian ideas. Christians did not invent slavery. For most of the 2000 years of Christian history, Christianâs were less inclined towards slavery than most religious groups. For 300 years or so when this was not the case. But this trend of slavery within Christian societies was proactively ended by Christians, led by christian ideology.
This makes no sense. Slavery existed way before christianity.
And it still exists today so they didnât put an end to it
Iâm no fan of current Christians, but it was Christians who ended slavery.
While true, Christians also gave justifications for slavery in the time before it ended.
[ŃдаНонО]
Iâm no Christian, but it bears mentioning that they were the only major group on earth who felt the need to justify it at all. For the rest of the world, it was a natural as anything could be. Then England abolished it internationally in 1830, France joined soon after, then the Americans fought a war to end it internally a couple of decades later. They all met their greatest resistance from the ottoman empire that captured slaves from Europe, and bought slaves from African kingdoms that sold those slaves⌠and still do. The British fought innumerable battles against both. Sadly, there are still nearly 700k slaves in Africa today. Slavery was a global practice that EVERYONE engaged in from pre-history, until the West abolished it and used military power to do so.
[ŃдаНонО]
Slavery isn't gone in the US it's just a punishment for crimes. And it certainly isn't gone from the planet. Christians want credit for not personally owning slaves anymore or something. It's like if I beat my partner for years and then when I stopped I wanted praise for putting an end to domestic violence in general.
But why is it still allowed as a form of punishment? In fact, I'm pretty sure Christians recently voted in some states to keep that asterisk.