Talk:Christian views on slavery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page Move

I moved this from Bible-based advocacy of slavery to more closely parallel Christian views of Jesus, Christian views of homosexuality, Old Testament views of women, Islamic views of homosexuality, etc. -- Queerudite 06:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==BIASED==

This article is ridiculous in its white washing of Christianity's stance on slavery. Christians didn't join the abolitionist movement until the Deists, Freemasons and Unitarians had been writing about their concept of individual human rights and the conflict of slavery with their non-biblical vision of the God of Nature for more than a century. It wasn't until this movement took hold in some Christian Protestant Denominations that any Christian even considered the possibility that slavery might be wrong. 2/11/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.238.14 (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For such ignorance wikipedia can help.Daniel1212 (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

God clearly states rules for slaves, and they are not equal. Its a lie to claim he does not approve of it! Oh wait he orders that people be taken as slaves, gues sthat does not count aswell!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what you are responding to, as my response was to the assertion that "it took 100 years of non-Christian abolition activism before any Christian even considered the possibility that slavery might be wrong." Which is somewhat of an overstatement. Even after the Roman church much corrupted the faith, at times advocated slavery, yet there were also those which condemned enslavement of peoples and worked for their freedom: http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/slavery.html; http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1201. See also "The Church and modern slavery": http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm. Later, in 1688 (shortly after their founding) the German Quakers in Germantown, Pennsylvania, expressed the inconsistency of buying, selling, and enslaving men with being Christians. In 1696 the Yearly Meeting for that province advised the members of the Society to guard in the future against importing African slaves. 1 Bowden, History of the Society of Friends in America; Clarkson, Abolition of the African Slave-Trade.

God never commanded slavery based on skin color. To say otherwise is a lie. There were many forms of slavery in ancient societies, but none, as far as I'm aware, were based soley on skin color or ethnic origin. For the ancient Israelites, it was based on being a non-Israelite. In the Roman Empire, anyone could be made a slave (including doctors, lawyers, etc.). In the 19th century U.S., only African (and American Indians?) were allowed to be slaves.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As for God commanding slavery, what verse are you referring to? One should not require allowance of something to be the ideal, and the fact that not all the Mosaic law was God's ideal, as confirmed by Jesus (Mk. 10:5), and that the progressive effects of the commands given in the N.T. to both slave and slave owner (which would include seeking the ideal of freedom for slaves), along with the full obedience to the Christian ethos of love, is more conducive to the eventual abolition of slavery than for it when the environment allowed it. If Christians were still in an environment in which slavery was an intractable part of the economy, and they had little to no political power, then it still would be best to make it humane and fair, with brotherly love working to change society as a whole. Slave revolts had not worked very well under the Romans, and the church itself was oppressed. As said before, one should also be aware that slavery was not a monolithic institution, and consider the context of the times. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html Daniel1212 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I added a rather more balenced view of the question. A list of biblical passages relevant to slavery is only scratching the surface of a complex and ongoing question. I also summarised the passages rather than quoting them. It's easy for anyone interested in the exact wording to look them up. New sections discussing the Christians who were involved in the abolitionist movements, both in the US and Europe, would certainly be welcome, as well as maybe expanding on the positions of the churches other than Baptist. DJ Clayworth 07:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't delete challenging sections

Balanced does not mean removing the supporting evidence. Although you removed all the pertinent passages related to Biblical endorsements of slavery, I note that you did retain selected quotes in opposition to slavery (ie. "In Christ, there is neither slave nor free.") In addition you used a lot of flowery language "tacitly endorsed" as though Christianity had a long history of questioning this practice. If the support is truly tacit, then by all means please back up this claim.

I realize that this is a challenging subject, but removing factual information that is presented in a frank & neutral way does not provide balance or elucidation of the complexities of this subject. Also, your feeling that the Biblical passages "only scratch the surface" (I wholly agree, as would many Christians) does not take into account those who feel that the Bible is the literal word of God. You're welcome to provide an opposing viewpoint or interpretation, but removing relevant biblical passages is really uncalled for. In fact, it seems ridiculous to talk about Christian views of slavery or other social issues without quoting the bible, please see: Christian views of Jesus, Christian views of homosexuality, Old Testament views of women, etc. -- Queerudite 04:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bible quotes and tacitness

I wrote "tacitly endorsed" because the Bible does not explicitly support slavery (You won't find a quote 'slavery is a good thing'). I don't think that's any different from what you were trying to say. However it is obvious that the Old Testament writers in particular assume slavery to be a normal part of life, and don't make any statement saying 'slavery is a bad thing' either. All I actually did was to make all the same points that are made in the passages you quote, but without quoting them. Can we not explain what the Bible says without having to quote it in detail every time? We can make the bible passages references rather than quotes. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think "tacitly endorsed" is deliberately misleading, because it implies the Bible is silent on the issue of slavery. This is far from the truth. Slavery was a common part of daily Hebrew life, and was addressed frequently in the Bible. Furthermore, the proslavery apologists most ardently believed that the Bible was not tacit in its (their view) endorsement of slavery, that it was explicit; and we have a responsibility to acknowledge that point of view in a neutral way. To put it in a modern context, some people believe that the Bible is silent on the issue of embroyonic stem-cell research, abortion, etc. Others hold a different view. Both should be represented.

Also, your summary of the Biblical quotes don't accurately represent the full complexity of the passages. For example:

• "especially restricting masters with regard to their slaves" You fail to note the passages restricting slaves with regards to masters. In particular, the ones directing slaves to obey their masters as though they were God, even when their masters are harsh.
• "the Israelites are prohibited from absolutely enslaving their fellow Israelites" But you don't mention how the same passage states explicitly "you may buy slaves" from neighboring countries.
• "A slave was in some ways property" Rather than "some ways", it would be more clear to explicitly describe the ways or specifically quantify them in some way. (see weasel words)
• "a master ... could be punished for killing them." This is the most misleading of all, I believe, because it doesn't indicate how a slave could be beaten to near-death without recourse or how slaves who were killed were given lesser treatment than free men (in terms of the financial renumeration and punishment).
• "From Exodus onward God is portrayed as he 'who brought you out of slavery in Egypt'". Should really illustrate this with the Bible passages. "From Exodus onward" is very vague, and I'm only familiar with Old Testament passages to this effect.

And the passages you DO choose to quote: "who brought you out of slavery in Egypt", "In Christ, there is neither slave nor free.", "we are all slaves of God", all address the solitary point of view that you've chosen to represent on this issue.

I feel like this article would be much better if we tried to collaborate rather than replace, and thereby include many points of view. -- Queerudite 01:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why not leave the Old Testament history to slavery to the wiki Slavery in the Hebrew Bible and more narrowly focus this article on the evolving attitudes toward slavery (of differing types) within the Christian sects? OT references are relevant inasmuch as Christianity is/was a branch of Judaism, but the Old Testament was not written by Christians and do not reflect the evolving beliefs of that particular religion.64.109.54.114 (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's now no specific biblical references that seem to support slavery. I'm changing it to "Numerous passages in the Bible have been used in support the practice." since the article does actually talk about people -- Aronzak (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Under Biblical references it does give some specific verses in both the O.T. and the N.T., and in addition to the prior reference to Leviticus 25:44-46 (see below), i added, "A servant was the master's property, but a master who killed his slave was to be punished, by being slain with the sword, as the Targum and Jarchi explain. (Exodus 21:21-22)

Question, I notice one or more users placing the period after the linked Bible reference, [...six years of servitude (Exodus 21:2-6), while non-Jewish people could be bought and be servants for life (Leviticus 25:44-46).], while the Manual of Style indicates punctuation should be before it: "Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space." Is this applicable to the above? Thanks Daniel1212 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a condensed referenced report on O.T. slavery, which states the sanction of slavery with some context.Daniel1212 (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I've replaced my introduction but left your quotes in place. Is this OK? DJ Clayworth 15:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the introduction should include something about the history of slavery and Christianity. In particular, how the abolition of slavery was not promoted by Christians for centuries and how Christians used the Bible to justify slavery at the start of abolitionist movement (and after its success). You removed this from the original introduction without explanation. Right now, the introduction makes it seem like there was never any conflict over this issue, aside from objections by the KKK. -- Queerudite 02:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I expanded the intro somewhat, though I didn't really change the content. Once I got beyond the first "Early Attitudes" section, however, the article is a mess- pardon me for saying so. The subtopics and chronology are all over the map. Is this an encyclopedia article, or just a tête-à-tête between people who love or hate religion? I'd like to help clean this article up, but I'm not quite sure where to begin! Mingusboodle (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Trinity

The Corinthians passage does not describe the Holy Spirit as a slave-master; the one who has done the purchasing is Jesus (or God the Father); the Holy Spirit is the gift of God to the redeemed person. However since the three persons of the Trinity are in actuality one God, it is not generally useful to try and separate out their functions. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I completely mischaracterized the Holy Spirit passage, you're right. I apologize. Thanks for catching it.

The reason I separated them is because I'm aware that some Christians do not believe in the Holy Trinity, but believe rather that each of the three is distinct and individual (see Nontrinitarianism). However, I was at a loss for how else to title the section, so I called it the Trinity (disgruntling Nontrinitarianists) and then separated each of the "manifestations" (disgruntling Trinitarianists). *shrug* I can't win! -- Queerudite 02:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

worldwide abolition

The introduction says: "In both Europe and the United States, progressive Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movements." Now I'm not a Christian myself, but I believe in "giving the devil his due," so to speak. A more inclusive statement would be to the effect of "Slavery has been almost totally abolished around the world by Christians." Jonathan Tweet 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, there's a big problem here

There's a page called Christianity and Slavery, which appears to have the same general point as this article, but yet has rather different content. How did this happen? Homestarmy 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I merged that article into this one, I think that does it. Radagast83 03:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Jonathan Tweet 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"virtuous"

Deleted "virtuous" from Biblical Figures who owned slaves. Virtuous is a value-judgment and POV, regardless of whether or not the figures are presented as "virtuous" within the context of texts mentioning them. --Chalyres 09:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification probably needed here...

"Some members of fringe Christian groups like the Christian Reconstructionists, the Christian Identity movement, and the Ku Klux Klan still argue that slavery is justified by the Christian doctrine today." This may be read to imply the Ku Klux Klan are a Christian organisation. I see no information in Wikipedia on the page for that organisation that shows this to be the case, and am not sure that this is the case. If this is so, this sentence should probably better read "... Reconstructionists and the Christian Identity movement argue..... The Klu Klux Klan also support this argument." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.177.68 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

biased

It looks like it was written by someone trying to justify how the Bible is anti-slavery and how any time Christians have been pro-slavery they have gone off the true path. Some neutral reporting of facts would be far better. Sad mouse 20:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is definitely anti-slavery, although in varying degrees. In any case, the kind of slavery practiced in the U.S. was never addressed in the Bible. Or, more precisely, whether a person can be enslaved based soley on skin color was NEVER endorsed by the Bible. If the Bible endorsed slavery, it did so only generally, which would mean that European, Asian, African, et al, people could also be slaves. Yet, that is NOT the kind of slavery practiced in the U.S.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The neutrality of the Catholic Encyclopedia (used as a source for how good slaves had it under Christianity) on this matter is suspect, as they had a considerable amount of incentive to whitewash things. There must be some more neutral scholarship on the issue. grendel|khan 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia references have been removed and appropriate tags added. 24.4.253.249 05:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What criteria of WP:RS do you claim that the Catholic Encyclopedia fails to meet that would justify your removal of those citations, only to go immediately back and add {{cn}} tags? -- Cat Whisperer 07:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the Catholic Encyclopedia citations. Please do not delete citations to a reliable source; this is never the correct way to make a biased article unbiased. -- Cat Whisperer 11:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, it's a tertiary source; we should use better.
• Secondly, it's a century old. Much research has been done on this since.
• Thirdly, it's tendentious and partisan; some of its statements are true, many are half-true, and some few are false; citing it permits all of them,

A responsible editor would look up a modern secondary source on ancient slavery like Finley or Sainte Croix. If that is beyond his resources, he would at least consult that infinitely superior work, the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the above are good ideas for improving this article. What I don't understand is why you don't follow one or more of your ideas, instead of just hacking out what qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Your revert only served to make the article worse in this regard, as well as re-introducing a typographical error that I took the effort to fix. The mere existence of better sources is no justification for removing the sources we currently have, especially if you aren't going to make any effort towards incorporating the new sources you mention. -- Cat Whisperer 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not meet the criteria of an unbiased source. 24.4.253.249 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

scope

The scope section has been dropped recently. It needs to go back in, so I have put it back in, with an additional remark about how Christian views have not all been the same, which is pretty uncontroversial! Mitchelltd 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial yes. And slavery was not a monolithic institution: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

The requirements of slaves owners in the N.T. would disallow the harsh treatment so often associated with slavery, and the preference to gain freedom indicates the opposite of an advocation of bondage, and it seems incongruous that one could receive a Christian slave as a brother and yet not offer him freedom. As the practice of slavery seems so antithetical by nature to the second Great Commandment, esp. at least as was common practiced, the regulation of it rather than an outright repudiation of it by the church - in which all races are spiritually one (Gal 3:28), and which as an organic community had no slavery (Acts 2:41-47)- appears problematic. But the early tolerance of slavery by the infant church might be understood that realizing that unless a slave was not able to obtain freedom, applying the requirements of equal pay and fair and merciful Christian treatment enable slavery to morally exist without a radical change in the economic model or society, and that Christians existed within a society in which they had little to no political power to change laws, and were in fact themselves often persecuted, and opposition to slavery at that time likely would have made it worse for the slaves. Instead, the primitive church, much of which was made up of slaves, focused on freeing souls from spiritual bondage and being a "holy nation" themselves. Later, the church became more institutionalized, and the people largely Biblically illiterate, though officially most of her time the Catholic church did condemn slavery. The more modern influence of Christians in influencing the abolition of slavery was much a result of the outworking of the Reformation and the evangelical second Great Awakening and the freedom to effect political change, and statesmen who were likeminded toward abolition and even equality (which was seldom initially the same). Well, that's my take. Daniel1212 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)daniel1212

CHristianity and the Atlantic Slave trade

Strange the largest slaving in the history of humanity was the Atlantic Slave trade conducted by Christians. No section on that? Now i am against all of this but i have noticed Islam and Slavery doesnt get spared. I have noticed Slavery in Modern Africa is all Islam.One would almost think someone was trying to wipe out know history. Every single place Christianity went outside of Europe it brought death and horror to those that meet it . Was it because of Christianity or Europeans is the key question, or a combination.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 13:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of the efforts towards the conversion of the slaves or of the slave versions of Christianity. --84.20.17.84 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

During the nineteenth century one of the principal loci of opposition to abolitionism was the southern religious establishment.

I have some problems with this line. Although the split between Baptists over slavery is very relevant to this article, the support of slavery in the South was obviously an economic position more than anything. This line makes it sound like the South would have supported abolition if only the established religion would have let them. That's so rediculous that it cheapens the entire article. I've deleted it. If someone wants to reinsert it, fine, but please support the statement and consider rewriting it. Mingusboodle (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"..it brought death and horror to those that meet it" is a bit of a broad brush, and certainly authors like Dinesh D'souza would contend much the opposite. The problem is partly with how you define "Christianity," by it's precepts and example in Scripture, in context, or by it's application under "Christian" theocracies, which I would contend the N.T. does not support, much less the use of the sword of men to punish men who disagree with it, though the just of it by the State is sanctioned (Mt. 5:39; 22:21; Rom 12:19; 1Cor. 5:12, 13). Daniel1212 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)daniel1212

Caution should be given when giving labels to any groups or societies. The label of Christian is problematic because you are referring to a society that called itself Christian. The slave ship owner John Newton (who wrote the famous hymn Amazing Grace) would have called himself a Christian until he repented and became someone that genuinely believed in the story of Jesus (i.e. a Christian). The abolitionist William Wilberforce wrote a book on how English society called itself Christian but was anything but. How many people call themselves Christians today and don't even in God? I'd venture quite a few.

In the Roman Empire

Added: Main article: Slavery in ancient Rome

Added some basic background info and some modified some material to be more objective and balanced.

"Present-day Christians argue that Paul and Peter were not defending or condoning slavery, but they simply recognized it as a fact of life in the Roman Empire."

Present day Christians argue.. need not be only relegated to such (see The Curse of Canaan Rightly Interpreted and Kindred Topics By Cornelius Henry), so I stated, "Anti-slavery Christians argue.."

"And that Paul was not a social reformer, but an apostle who was more concerned with the spiritual condition of men and women than he was with their physical circumstances. However, the text of the Bible leaves them with little support."

The latter sentence is arguable, but is stated as fact, not as a "some say" type statement, but an assertion which i find wanting. It now says, "Some contend however, about the level of support in the text of the Bible for this position." Daniel1212 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Then,

"Paul, while in prison, himself addressed the spiritual attitudes of believers, in order so that people would ultimately find slavery repugnant.." which goes on to invoke Philemon.

It is not seen here that Paul was deliberately writing to make slavery repugnant, so I modified it to read,

"While slavery advocates used such texts in support of slavery, the apostle Paul's exhortations on the spiritual attitudes of believers worked to bring many people to find slavery repugnant, especially by virtue of their relationship with Christ."

I believe this is fair to say, as Paul's commands to slave masters to exercise equal and fair treatment, and to receive a Christian slave as a brother, and his recommendation for slaves to seek freedom, as well as the doctrine of spiritual equality among races and the requirements of Christian love, not only required it to be far more humane than was often realized, but taken together militates against anything less than a fair employer/employee relationship (with freedom to leave).

Next,

"In the Epistle to Philemon Paul appeals to his convert Philemon's commitment to Christ: "If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him (Onesimus) as myself"[14] and "even though I do not say to you how you yourself owe me your own self besides [15]

Another editor had retaliated to Philemon... with:

Of course, the letter is accompanying a runaway slave being returned to his master; and the letter to the Ephesians contains the famous admonition: "Slaves! be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, in fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" [14] which specifically compares that relationship with the relationship between a believer and a deity, and indeed, "endorses" slavery[15].

This rather flippant response suffers from a lack of objectivity, as in context that this is an exhortation to do all things "as [a simile] to the Lord and not to men", which Paul goes on to exhort the slave master also to do, knowing they themselves had a master - in Heaven (v. 9).

My edit was,

"The letter is accompanying a runaway slave being returned to his master, who is reminded of his spiritual debt to Paul. His letter to the Ephesians also contains the admonition: "Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, in fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" that being "as to the Lord, and not to men", and which attitude masters were likewise called to[16]. From such texts it is evident that slavery was accepted in the New Testament as a fact of life[17].

Of course, I am also aware there is still a good deal of redundancy on the page (as well as on the subject itself), though I am working to reduced some of the repetition with a minimum of loss of the original.

 ==Slavery in the Americas==

I created section 5, Slavery in the Americas, and I put a few existing sections under that heading. I'm going to work on organizing the subheadings, without changing the existing article. If we can get this article organized, maybe it'll be easier for us to clean up the individual sub-topics. Mingusboodle (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This section already stated some things covered under the above Christian abolitionism section (before I added more content relative to that), and i think remarks on US and UK opposition to slavery would fit better there or under the United States section below, as they are partly redundant (which wiki never is). I think perhaps I would move "Although many abolitionists opposed slavery on purely philosophical reasons" to before [yet] "many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by a Christian faith," under Christian abolitionism. And also move "A more radical abolitionist, John Brown"... there as well, and replace the rest under "in the Americas" with a little more info on slavery in S. America and efforts there pro and con, while any influence to Christian abolitionism could be referenced to that section rather than being redundant. That topic itself could be a whole page (not that i can do so) to add to the collection of (slavery and religion, Bible and slavery, Slavery in the United States History of slave trade, Atlantic slave trade, British slave trade, African slave trade, Abolition, Slavery in ancient Greece, Slavery in ancient Rome,[Slavery in antiquity]], Slavery in medieval Europe, Judaism and slavery and others, besides of course, Slavery)! Daniel1212 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)daniel1212

Curse of Ham

This section would seem to better fit under Biblical References section. I think material should be organized into three basic divisions of History, and Bible References and Arguments. A for now, as the Curse.. seemed unbalanced or incomplete, with little evidence of the problems with the racial Curse of Ham hypothesis, i added some material relative to that.

What does "subsequent translations were stirred to reflect the biases and prejudice of the era" refer to? The wikipedia Curse of Ham source of this indicates it to be Rabbinical Talmud commentaries, but the mention of imagery here goes beyond that. I rendered it, "the idea that Africans were cursed was derived from that [skin color curse hypothesis], and some subsequent commentaries reflected this bias, with the most profound manifestation occurring in imagery, which constantly portrayed white as God, and black as the Devil (though there can be reasons other than racial bias for such)."

(Note Song 1:5: "I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.") Daniel1212 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also added was

Modern evangelicals note that the curse was actually declared on Canaan, not Ham, and that it is not likely that Africans are descended from Canaan. And that skin color cannot be used as justification by a Christian for racial discrimination.[29]

After no adverse input, I did what i had suggested, and moved the Curse of Ham to under the O.T. subsection of the Biblical References section. I also worked on making some of the other subsections more orderly. Still much to learn.Daniel1212 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Serfdom

The section on serfdom was pretty flippant, so I cleaned it up a bit. The only problem is that I couldn't find much reliable material on the relationship between the institution of serfdom and Christianity, which is the whole point of the article. If someone could add a few sentences to that effect, that would be great.--Aervanath (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Direct support

"As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have; of the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves." (Leviticus 25:44)

Korossyl, I am not sure I understand your argument. Is it that "you may have/buy slaves" is not direct or that it is not support? Your comment indicated that a quote to the effect of "keep slaves" would suffice. The speaker in this case is Yahweh (God). Queerudite (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! What I mean to say is, I think the lead is pretty misleading. The sentence states, they "were able to and did quote numerous Biblical passages that directly supported the practice of slavery." There is that verse, true. On the other hand, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many others like it, outside of the one Moreover, even that verse is rather lukewarm; rather than "directly supporting," it gives one circumstance in which the Israelites "may have" slaves. As The Bible and slavery article writes, "The Hebrew Bible does not promote slavery, but neither does it condemn it." The most supportive verses are quiet allowance for certain slaves, under certain conditions; I don't think this case is adequately expressed by the phrase "number Biblical passages" that "directly support" slavery. No?

I would suggest the following phrasing: "On the other hand, those opposed to abolition and equal rights were able to and did quote some Biblical passages that appear to lend support to the practice of slavery. Korossyl (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you somewhat. What I don't like about the revised language is it waters down the main idea of that paragraph. The problem with "appear to lend support" is its ambiguity. Does it mean that the Bible is self-contradictory about slavery? That the support is implicit? That the verses are misinterpreted? Those are each very different things. And the ambiguous language undercuts the main point of that paragraph: that Christian abolitionists had an uphill battle arguing that the institution of slavery was inherently immoral when Biblical passages permit and regulate its practice.

I don't understand your point that the Bible "allows for certain slaves, under certain conditions." My understanding is that the sentence is contrasting abolitionists who think slavery should be abolished and others who feel it should be permitted (albeit with regulations). In this context, I don't see how the Bible is lukewarm or quiet. Queerudite (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the unique aspect of this question is that it is not asking what the Bible as a whole teaches about slavery, but whether individual verses, removed from context, can be quoted as "directly supporting" the practice. If it were the former, we'd have a theological debate that's largely covered in the The Bible and slavery article; the Christian Scriptures, as a whole, understand slavery as an undesirable consequence of man's fallen nature that is permitted in some limited cases under the Old Covenant and strongly discouraged under the New. Indeed, I think this is the "spirit of Christianity" referred to in the lead, but it is a more nuanced approach that requires reading the Bible holistically. Picking and choosing verses outside of their immediate context or outside of their context in the whole of Scripture can lead to some apparent contradiction. This is the "uphill battle" you describe; the abolitionists had to prove a point that had more subtlety than the crowd-pleasing pro-slavery Bible snippets used by the pro-slavery demagogues (not that there aren't verses in the Bible equally condemning of slavery; see Galatians 3:28).

So, what I guess I'm saying is... even looking at that verse in isolation, it's not what I would really call "direct support" for slavery. It sets down a regulation that, at best, implies consent rather than explicitly declares support. That's why I would say "appear:" upon a cursory reading, you might think that the Bible permits that holding of slaves, but even then, it would seem a rather tepid permission. No? Korossyl (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion is because of the semantic difference between "support" and "consent". I changed the sentence to read "permit and regulate" rather than "directly support". I think that makes the sentences clearer and more accurate. Do you agree? Queerudite (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's perfect. It gets across the point that those verses do exist, without making it seem that they say more than they do. Thanks for chatting with me! Korossyl (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for pointing out the unclear wording. Queerudite (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I find no real objection to "permit and regulate." Your very civil discussion evidences one that often grows very heated, with 2 extremes being expressed. Part of the problem is the concept of slavery, which is often more evocative than analytical, and what we mean by "Bible" and what we mean by support. As stated, and as Lv. 25:44 verse indicates, the legislation concerning slaves coveys more of permission, rather than a transcendent moral imperative, such as "Thou shalt have slaves." The closest thing to the latter is in Dt. 20:10-16, but it is not slavery there that is necessarily commanded, but the subjection of surrendered cities in the context of their wars of conquest, which were to be made tributaries states. In the second case, that of cities who fought and were defeated militarily, the women and offspring became Israel's, but it is possible that the women became wives (Dt. 21:10-14), and i think her kids would then stay with her.

In any case, i think it is right to state that the O.T. sanctioned slavery, that of it's regulated forms, as is stated here under the O.T. section. And under the N.T. physical slavery is never a requirement, but Christian conduct is required for both slaves and owners in doing their work. And which requirements i believe, if read fully and in context, including Paul's requirements for Philemon and his counsel to slaves to obtain freedom, along with all that is required of Christians, that it makes the abolition of slavery (when other factors allow it), more conducive to the expression of the Christian ethos of love than even tolerance of a greatly modified form of slavery. So would freedom from the theocracies of Europe. Meanwhile, the focus of the church was mainly not directly social reform of the world, but over the issues of the heart which determined how one's conduct in the world was manifested, nor was deliverance from one's station in life the primary (but not exclusionary) focus, but one's attitude in it.

As far as the reference to Lev. 25:44 to support that anti abolitionist used numerous Biblical passages that permit and regulate the practice of slavery, i think simply referring to the proved O.T. section in the article would do, and or one or more of the works of such men. On the other hand, to say that all abolitionists could do was to refer to "the 'spirit of Christianity' rather than to quote the Bible" is misleading, and as such is contradicted under the Christian abolitionism section. "A_Condensed Anti slavery Bible Argument" (http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/bourne/bourne.html) and "God Against Slavery (1857), by Rev. George B. Cheever, D.D. (http://medicolegal.tripod.com/cheevergvs.htm; main site has many abolitionists resources) for just a couple, may help in this.Daniel1212 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Daniel1212 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I agree with you. As worded, the bit about "the spirit of Christianity" is misleading: Christian abolitionists did quote the Bible frequently. Though, I also agree that abolitionists had to draw more on the general themes of the Bible, whereas slavery apologists could quote passages that specifically permitted and regulated the practice of slavery. I still think the changes Korossyl and I made are an improvement, but I agree that the statement as written is still misleading (if not outright inaccurate). I am sure there is a better way to word it, but I am not sure what that wording is.

I also want to commend you on your work on this article. It was really a mess before you began editing it. The tone has become much more neutral, and the quality of the article has improved a great deal. Thank you for editing it! Queerudite (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I am still much a novice at this, nor very learned, except somewhat in things of the Bible, and so this is an education for me in more ways then one. May I ask you if I am correct in placing a comma before the reference in a sentence or am I supposed to put it afterwards, as in "commentator Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714) sees the servitude of the Canaanites as a fulfillment of the the curse (Joshua 9:23; Judges 1:28–35), with Canaan likely taking on negative moral characteristics of his father Ham.

As for the text at issue, "Centuries later, as the abolition movement took shape across the globe, groups who advocated slavery's abolition attempted to harness Christian teachings in support of their positions. However, they were forced to refer to the 'spirit of Christianity' rather than quote the Bible. On the other hand, those opposed to abolition and equal rights were able to and did quote numerous Biblical passages that permit and regulate the practice of slavery", perhaps it could be better rendered something like,

Centuries later, as the abolition movement took shape across the globe, Christian individuals and groups who advocated the abolition of slavery saw the Bible as supporting their cause. This typically required not simply contrasting the slavery of the South with that of the Bible, in particular the New Testament, but also subjecting the tolerance of slavery to the requirements of the fuller expression of the ethos of Christian love, which should and could then dispense with any form of it. In contrast, Christians who defended the institution of slavery saw the plain regulatory commands of the Bible as sanctioning slavery for all time, though they gave assent to the Biblical requirements for treatment of slaves.

From what little I know of abolitionist apologetical works they were not superficial, and could go into great detail in examining Biblical texts on slavery. But while I have no real exegetical problem myself in showing slavery to be a cultural appendage that the fuller outworking of Holy Christian love could jettison when such opportunity enabled (though it's requirements of slave masters could also enable it to be morally tolerable, if necessary), I have not read enough of the the abolitionist arguments at all to say that my summation is accurate enough of their their typical polemic. I see in one by George Cheever, the most prolific writer it seems, that they saw Biblical slavery as less than slavery, and applied the condemnation of men stealers to the slave trade of the South. Etc. This all can be an extensive study, and perhaps "The Guilt of Slavery and the Crime of Slave-holding Demonstrated from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures" gives a good example of arguments used: http://www.archive.org/stream/guiltofslaverycr00chee/guiltofslaverycr00chee_djvu.txt And again, this site has vast resources on such. http://medicolegal.tripod.com/abolitionists.htmDaniel1212 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead is simply wrong

However, they were forced to refer to the 'spirit of Christianity' rather than quote the Bible. On the other hand, those opposed to abolition and equal rights were able to and did quote numerous Biblical passages that permit and regulate the practice of slavery.[1]

This is wrong. The body text can point to an explicit verse telling Christians that if they can be made free, they should do so. 1 Corinthians 7:21. There are other examples. 129.120.86.78 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Both the intro and the section at issue were far from objective, and reflected a superficial understanding of the issue, and of proper exegesis, and as such was at odds with much in the article. It now reads,

The issue of Christianity and slavery is one that has seen intense conflict. While Christian abolitionists were a principal force in the abolition of slavery, the Bible sanctioned the use of regulated slavery in the Old Testament, while the New Testament does not explicitly condemn slavery in all its forms. Numerous passages in the Bible have historically been used by pro slavery advocates to support the practice as valid for their societies.

Slavery in different forms existed within Christianity for over 18 centuries. [This should not assume what pases for Christianity is always Biblical] In the early years of Christianity slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and well into the Middle Ages and beyond. Centuries later, as the abolition movement took shape across the globe, groups who advocated slavery's abolition worked to harness Christian teachings in support of their positions, using both the 'spirit of Christianity' and textual argumentation. On the other hand, those opposed to abolition and equal rights were able to quote numerous Biblical passages that permitted and regulated the practice of slavery.Daniel1212 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

regarding the biblical citations

The biblical citations in this article are inadmissible as proof of any attitude the authors of the Bible might have had toward slaves. It's obvious that the Bible's authors wouldn't sanction slavery unless they held slaves to be less than human beings, so that to prove their sanction of it (at least if we understand the word "slavery" in more than its narrow sense referring to a particular institution in particular societies) we have to show whom they despised. And in order to do that, we need secondary sources that explain the context of these biblical passages.

I've marked the article with NPOV and I invite those who brought in the citations to put them in context or to delete them. --VKokielov (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your argument. Could you clarify? I certainly agree that the Bible is not 'proof' of the attitude of early Christians, but isn't it evidence? I certainly think that it's relevant. If your point is simply that the Biblical passages would benefit from historical context, I agree. But I don't think they are POV (in the context of the article) or inadmissible. I think the article would be incomplete without discussing the Bible. Queerudite (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the verses count as evidence, and the issue for believers was/is not really whether writers sanctioned it but God as the ultimate author of the Bible did. Perhaps what VKokielov is relating to what manner of sanction this is, seen by understanding the cultural context behind the laws. In this case, there was no imperative law which absolutely required slavery, and laws which are seen to regulate where slaves could be obtained and treated are not part of the context of basic moral laws on basic human behavior, but belong more as part of "culturally applied laws", in which the context as well as the principal behind such must be considered. In this case the culture was one in which surviving conquered enemies were not put in jail but put to work, though it was not just the soldiers but all the surviving people, who, being tribal, might likely have remained enemies if not brought as a whole into subjection. But normally slavery under the Hebrews was that of buying native and foreign slaves from the slaves own people, which supplemented "hired servants."

As for the question of whether these were seen as property, and i suppose such would be tangible personal property versus real property - though as foreign slaves were owned generationally perhaps it could be the latter - the answer would be yes, but to what degree is the question. Even foreign slaves had some rights, such as seen in gaining freedom for the loss of a tooth, or justice which required (apparently) the death of the master for 1st degree murder of a slave, as well as freedom if he escaped (which may infer that such was to deter ill treatment). Foreign female slaves had less status than male, but still had certain rights, and could not be sold as slaves if the Hebrew divorced her, but was free to go where she wanted. And as foreigners living among Israel were not to be oppressed, but treated good, then the 2nd class status was primarily not racial. Slavery for Hebrew slaves is largely seen as a means of depth management (is the auto industry listening?), and were to be treated like hired servants, and could go free after 6 years (if they so choose), with generous "severance pay." And all slaves evidently has much time off from hard or even any servile work. And under the N.T. further amelioration is mandated, and freedom seen as a goal, while the statue of servant hood itself is elevated above being served, and both masters and servants being called into the same submission to Christ's commands. Much could be said about how men like "Paul the prisoner" saw his brother Onesimus the slave, but what the priority was/is to be among Christians.

So, just as the institution of slavery itself was not a monolithic once, even throughout the Bible, neither is the idea of property, or how slaves were.Daniel1212 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I propose this article be merged with The Bible and slavery. Most of the material in this article is redundant to what is in that one, and that one is broader in that it encompasses both Judaism and Christianity, which is more NPOV in my opinion, since the existence of this article gives undue weight to christianity in particular in relation to slavery, seeing as most references to slavery are in the old testament. This point is mentioned in the article. Please discuss. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is no more discussion on this for a week, I'm going to treat it as concensus. 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs)

Oppose This article can discuss many things out of Christian tradition (that is, Papal statements, scholarly consensus, public opinion among Christians, and so on) that 'The Bible and slavery' cannot. The Squicks (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment It can, but does it? That is the question.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support merging The Bible and Slavery into this article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Given that verses such as 1 Corinthians 7:21-23 have been cited as clearly against slavery, I changed the lead from one that falsely implied that pro-slavery people had precedent and anti-slavery people had nothing to a correct wording. The Squicks (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

New Testament Pauline Criticism is Extraneous

In the New Testament section the arguments about who wrote or didn't write the Pauline epistles are irrelevant to this article, which is about Christianity's historic and modern positions on slavery.

The Pauline Epistles were universally accepted as canonical by the Church by the end of the fourth century. (See Biblical canon for history.) Furthermore, there are no citations given of church fathers who argued against the authorship of any of the Pauline Epistles or against theirs statements regarding slavery.

I am modifying this paragraph to reflect what the accepted Bible of church history says about slavery, while removing the questions about authorship. This change is not a judgment on the legitimacy of such questions.69.19.14.35 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pasted here is the section I removed. The research is commendable, but would be more applicable in a section on modern criticms of slavery. Even then it appears to be original research because the sources cited are not arguing against slavery on the basis of textual criticism, they are arguing against authenticity of these books of the Bible. Essentially, this sentence is an original argument that the New Testament doesn't support slavery, because certain Pauline epistles are not genuine apostolic writings. It would be better to cite this argument from a source who has actually argued, "Christianity doesn't support slavery, because the slavery-tolerant passages in the NT are not authentic."69.19.14.35 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

However, most scholars believe that these particular Pauline epistles were not actually authored by Paul.

Introduction is a Rant

The introduction to this article is extremely biased, and reads as a rant rather than an impartial description. It also contains numerous grammar and spelling errors. Furthermore, it is virtually identical to the The Bible and slavery intro. Would an admin be able to address this? Thank you. Bobaati (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to the original referenced wording again. But Rences keeps putting his polemic back. Please stop. Wikipedia is for balanced coverage not one-sided polemic essays. Xandar 01:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The same editor is doing it to the Bible and slavery page, except more, using different names, "Rences wiki," "Luca Marco" and "Comprehensible view", and now just IP's, after i posted an appeal and warning on each of the talk pages of the names (i presume are all) used by this same editor, in part stating, "Perhaps you are ignorant of the extensive efforts at balance regards the wording of this complex and contentious issue, which are seen in their talk pages. Continued reversions back to your version will result in deletions, and administrative intervention. Thanks" i just posted the issue on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not finding anything else more precisely for this problem.Daniel1212 (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also posted a warning on his Talk Page. I am an admin but with over 2000 pages on my watchlist it is easy for me to miss stuff. If this continues to be a problem, leave a message on my Talk Page and I'll come over and take a look. --Richard S (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

funny I was just coming here to complain about the Lead. It is a rant, it is not encyclopedic, how can you start a historical topic with "Slavery is a heated issues" thats original research. Start with the facts. I am complaining but have no plans 2 do any work here. but the lead is not up 2 wiki standard.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Need for links to and integration with other Wiki articles about religion and slavery

This article badly needs to be broken up and better integrated with and linked to other Wiki articles on religion and slavery. See, for example, the separate article Catholic_Church_and_slavery. Also, the scholarship is badly out of date in both this article and the Catholic Church and Slavery article. See my note "The Divjak letters shed new light on Augustine and slavery" at Talk:Catholic Church and slavery. Ajschorschiii (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The importance of this issue

Defending the history of the position of the Catholic Church on slavery has become a major cottage industry in recent years as evidenced by this page and the discussion. Along with the history of its position on anti-semitism, nothing more challenges the integrity of Catholic moral teaching, not to mention its divine authority.

This issue involves the integrity and sacredness of the individual and is intimately related to issues of freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly.

The controversy undercuts the common assumptions (in the U.S. at least) that modern freedoms somehow are based on Christian principles. History, on the other hand, indicates that the Catholic Church fought tooth and nail against the institution of these freedoms (which were only won only by intense violence and force). The fact that the Church has thrown its full weight in defending these freedoms (albeit so late in history) and the fact that Christians universally identity with them show how critically important the issue has become.

Accordingly, I think the highest level of importance should be assigned this page.58.152.28.212 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Really?

In the article:

"The institution of slavery, and the influx of forced Christian conversions, eliminated traditional African religions in the United States. No Ibo, Ashanti, or Yoruba traditional culture and religion survived."

What about Louisiana Voodoo, Hoodoo, etc.? Aren't they based on West African religions? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cleanup

This article needs a lot of work. I'm hoping to find some time over the next few days to go through it. Initially, it would be helpful to source, rephrase or remove all passages which editorialize the subject, or violate WP:SYNTH; It appears that would constitute most of the article. Once we have it whittled down in that way, the article will be in much better shape, and building up sourced, factual content will be easier. Anyone who would like to help with this, please wade in. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 04:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Page move

This article was recently renamed from "Christianity and slavery" to "Christian views on slavery." I know we are asked to be bold here but a page move may have significant impacts and are not as easily reverted as regular edits. It seems prudent to get some sense of what other editors think about it before diving in.

In my view the new title may not be the best we could have come up with since the topic is not just about views but also actions. The new title makes it sound like we're describing an objective debate rather than the very physical, oppressive, and liberating role of Christianity. Jojalozzo 02:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a more better title be "Christian views of slavery"? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Christian views on slavery → Christian involvement with slavery — "Views" mainly suggests just verbal expression but the article covers actions as well. "Involvement" includes both words and actions. Jojalozzo 04:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. "Involvement" with slavery implies an assumed position of active participation, in cooperation, support or promotion. Christian "views" seems more appropriate (maybe not "views on slavery", but "views of slavery", as suggested earlier). This article still seems to me to be primarily about views. Walrasiad (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of "involvement" as being a neutral term for opposition to as well as support of slavery. "Views" is a passive term that suggests an observer role but Christianity has been active both in supporting and in opposing slavery. Can you suggest a term that implies a active role? Jojalozzo 03:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "active". Slavery was a matter of civil law, not religious practice. Christianity was an observer. The "activity" of Christian groups and institutions, was largely articulating, promoting and disseminating their view of slavery. Even if these views might eventually influence civil legislation, their contribution was still their "views". Walrasiad (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. Involvement is less neutral that is for sure. And I think this article must MIRROR other articles eg Islam and Judaism. In terms of cross wiki balance. Personally I think Christianity and Slavery would fix the problem because it then would allow a broad discussion. There is no denying the role of Christianity in enslavement but at the same time that is not the only role, and in terms of Worldview it is not all christianity (see Ethiopia for example), same is true for Islam. Involvement squashes that dynamic reality and already offers us a conclusion which is a casual relationship between religion and enslavement. (this is a problem b/c it is not the case)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose -- The article is primarily about views or attitudes, not involvement, which refers to attitudes. However, I could accept "Christianity and slavery". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  Christianity and slavery is better than the current title since it allows for more than a Christian role as simple observer. However, that title choice was changed in 4/2010 because it was "an ambiguous title that could mean, for example, the use of Christians as slaves." Would it make sense to include a section on the enslavement of Christians? Jojalozzo 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Some past history:
  • 00:37, April 1, 2010 Christianity and slavery moved to Christian slavery
  • 16:56, April 4, 2010 Christian slavery moved to Christianity and slavery
  • 00:46, April 13, 2011 Christianity and slavery moved to Christian views on slavery ("Christianity and slavery" is an ambiguous title that could mean, for example, the use of Christians as slaves. "Christian views on slavery" more accurately represents the contents of the article.)

Jojalozzo 23:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History of institutional slavery section recommendation.

The third paragraph seems to be referenced excessively by Rodney Stark's, The Victory of Reason, but this book centers around Europe. So while the first paragraph and first sentence especially, "Slavery and Middle Ages serfdom were not synonymous, nor was serfdom the evolution of slavery.", may or may not be accurate for Europe it is not expressed exclusively as such. If instead a broader claim is being made that serfdom has never evolved from slavery then the Russian Emancipation of 1679 and 1723 with the change over time of all slaves to serfs would seem to stand in contradiction. Rewrite recommended.Warterra (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not veiw but history

I found that some of the religions are not the religions view but only the history on what they did against it in America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.185.166 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you put the title as 'slavery in the bible'. Because that's exactly what it is. If you read the scriptures, God doesn't promote slavery at all. An example why he would he have comissioned Moses to free the Israelites from the slavery under Egyptian rule which is in the book of exodus. -Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.227.26 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction, God does not promote the enslavement of Israelite. However, He does condones the enslavement of other nations such as the Canaanites and other tribes whom Joshua massacred when he conquered Jerusalem. Just try to read the Old Testament. This article is very biased. It seems like it was written by a group of Christian apologists who tried to whitewash or remove any connection that implied the Bible condones slavery. The Bible does condones slavery, especially of conquered nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.8.38 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Though the laws of slavery are condoned in the Bible, there is also a commandment to free slaves of all ethnicity at a certain time (if I can recall correctly). If anything this page is far too harsh on Christianity- Medieval Europe was remarkably slave free, as seen on this websites own 'Slavery in Medieval Europe'. The fact that this page and that clash so remarkably needs to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.230.115 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What? The Bible give slaves false hope that a Hebrew slave may be freed after 7 years of servitude. But there's an exclusion clause to it; the master can hold the slave's wife and children as ransom in such ways that the slave would have no choice but to serve his master FOREVER. Why are you Christians so afraid to reveal this fact? In fact no biblical passage ever appeared in this article; this is in contrast the with the article of "Muhammad's view of slavery", where the article was so biased in a way that obviously shows that the writer intends to portray Muhammad as somekind of a malovelant slave trader. This is bullshit. Why is it that this article are allowed a clean pass without citing any biblical passages which condones and even encourage slavery? 210.195.14.111 (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Slavery versus Servitude?

I don't believe this article distinguishes at all between "slavery" and "servitude", using the term "slavery" in all cases. This can be very misleading. While "slavery" means privation of freedom and of personal dignity, "servitude" on the other hand doesn't quite have that meaning. "Servitude" is not a complete privation of personal freedom, it is tending more towards a work relationship between "servant" and "master". The "master" is the employer, and the "servant" is the employed. While a "slave" is deprived of all rights, a "servant" on the other hand may be limited but is not deprived of all rights. It is an important distinction even when interpreting texts, biblical or non. There are different terms used in the different languages that can convey "slavery" or can convey "servitude". For example, in latin the term "famulus" is similar to "servus" but very different from the term "mancipium" or from the term "sclavus". "Famulus" refers to one who "works for the family" and also has a connotation of one who is "a member of the family". Clearly very different from other terms that refer to enslavement. Similary in greek, "δούλος" and "σκλάβος" are quite different from "υπηρέτης" or from the verb "σερβίρω". "To be subject to" is not the same as "to wait upon". And so in every language. It is very important to understand what kind or what level of slavery or servitude is being referenced in the texts that are quoted as to avoid misinterpretation. --Lwangaman (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone in servitude decide to leave their master? If so, I'd agree with you. If not, it's just semantics and makes no substantive difference... 86.130.176.150 (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

removing key statements from lead

In this diff Col8lok8 removes "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of slavery.<ref>[http://medicolegal.tripod.com History of Abolitionism]</ref>" (while also adding cites). @Jess: you claim I misread his diff but did not detil where this statement would still be. tahc ^chat 17:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I see. That's probably because tripod.com isn't a reliable source. Can we find a proper source for that claim (I'm sure there is one) and then reintroduce it where it was before? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that I removed the statement because it had been there a long time without a reliable source.Col8lok8 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't remove things just because you don't like them, and someone now finds it to lack a reliable source. You ask for such a source, and then wait.

You also don't insert orginal reaserch while waiting, in an effert to give words the meanings you prefer. tahc ^chat 19:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Tahc, for providing a few sources! I appreciate it! Unfortunately, those sources don't quite verify what we're saying. For example, this source verifies that Pope Francis condemned human trafficking (and we could extrapolate that Catholicism condemns human trafficking), but it says nothing of "all Christians" or "near unanimity", and unfortunately it is the very best of the group of 4 sources. It sounds like the "JOINT DECLARATION OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AGAINST SLAVERY" might be a good lead for something more direct. I don't doubt the claim, which is why I've left it in, but we need a source for it. An ideal source would discuss the subject dispassionately and internationally, and include the parts of the world where Christian groups still employ slavery, which would allow us to convey exactly where it's "nearly unanimous" and where it still occurs. I don't know of such a source, unfortunately.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)