Augustine, slavery, and whipping

[theCardinalbird]

Anybody who could beat and own another human being is a terrible person. Anyone who advocates for that is a terrible person. Empathy existed in Augustine’s time. It appears he just chose not to utilize it. It’s not just Christians eithier, people of all and no Faith’s were guilty.

But see this ideology of slavery was crammed into Augustines brain as something normal. Can we at least say that he was seduced by a dumb social custom?

 

[QwertyGirl]

I believe it would be a kindness if we would cane people for certain crimes. With the intent to change behavior and turn the person around. I believe it would be a deterrent. We are not being kind to keep putting people in prison, only to see them return for the same crime.

Right. Lets just beat the $hit out of them instead. What logic.

 

[on_the_hill]

on_the_hill:

I think you’d have to go a lot farther back than 30 years, friend. There wasn’t any ruler smacking going on in 1988.
It’s always interesting when people want to hearken back to the old days, and the old days seem like yesterday to me.

I should have said 40. My parents got hit with the belt

Just a question: how old are you?

 

[theCardinalbird]

Just a question: how old are you?

A minor

(10 characters)

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Augustine did put some sort of guidelines. It might not even be a valid quote like that one about singing. There might be more context in reading the whole work than in this single quote.

 

[on_the_hill]

I’m old enough to be your parents, in that case.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I can honestly say that if I beat slaves and preached that it was just I would be wrong and horrible. Unless, again, you think that morals are relative to society and time period.

I do not think morals are relative. In the end, slavery is considered wrong in society. We recognized unjust servitude and slavery were wrong centuries ago. Augustine was speaking about a social custom that was not considered wrong in society at the time. Explain to me how I should look at this?

When society changes, people who held views before the change immediately are characterized as evil. Explain the justice in doing that?

This is the confusion I am having and is really what I am arguing about

Again, I said Augustine was condoning evil, not that he was evil. He was wrong and horrible.

So; was slavery morally okay back then?

If not, then Augustine was preaching an immoral act. If it was then morality is relative.

 

[Alex337]

on_the_hill:

I think you’d have to go a lot farther back than 30 years, friend. There wasn’t any ruler smacking going on in 1988.
It’s always interesting when people want to hearken back to the old days, and the old days seem like yesterday to me.

I should have said 40. My parents got hit with the belt

And my father was forcibly taken from his biological family as part of the White Australia policy; that wasn’t right either. What’s your point? People 40 years ago did bad things.

 

[wkj_123]

But see this ideology of slavery was crammed into Augustines brain as something normal. Can we at least say that he was seduced by a dumb social custom

Look at it this way. If you argue that it was a societal norm and they didn’t know any better then abviously empathy didn’t exist at that time. When your whipping someone to the bone and you think hey I wouldn’t want this done to me I bet that hurts this guy that’s empathy. If your argument is true then obviously empathy didn’t exist in Augustine’s time. When would you argue empathy came into existence? On what date did humans wake up and be able to realize they wouldn’t want what they are doing to others done to themselves?

 

[Alex337]

wkj_123:

Anybody who could beat and own another human being is a terrible person. Anyone who advocates for that is a terrible person. Empathy existed in Augustine’s time. It appears he just chose not to utilize it. It’s not just Christians eithier, people of all and no Faith’s were guilty.

But see this ideology of slavery was crammed into Augustines brain as something normal. Can we at least say that he was seduced by a dumb social custom?

He was. But that doesn’t make the action moral, or make him right. Or even okay for preaching such immorality.

 

[wkj_123]

And my father was forcibly taken from his biological family as part of the White Australia policy; that wasn’t right either. What’s your point? People 40 years ago did bad things

Oh wow that’s terrible. I’m so sorry your dad and family had to go through something like that.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

And my father was forcibly taken from his biological family as part of the White Australia policy; that wasn’t right either. What’s your point? People 40 years ago did bad things

Oh wow that’s terrible. I’m so sorry your dad and family had to go through something like that.

Happy ending to the story; his biological family later ran off together and had three daughters who they managed to avoid having stolen. My dad’s adopted family were lovely people and he found his biological family later in life. God was good too us after people were crummy.

 

[theCardinalbird]

So; was slavery morally okay back then?

Ask the people who lived in his time period

then Augustine was preaching an immoral act.

He was and we learned not to commit that act.

Look at it this way. If you argue that it was a societal norm and they didn’t know any better then abviously empathy didn’t exist at that time. When your whipping someone to the bone and you think hey I wouldn’t want this done to me I bet that hurts this guy that’s empathy. If your argument is true then obviously empathy didn’t exist in Augustine’s time. When would you argue empathy came into existence. On what date did humans wake up and be able to realize they wouldn’t want what they are doing to others done to themselves.

If you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit.

Does that sound like whipping someone to the bone?

He was. But that doesn’t make the action moral, or make him right. Or even okay for preaching such immorality.

And I am fine with that. So long as you and @wkj_123 agree that this was human error for listening to the society at the time, and that when dealing with social customs while excusing doctrines and dogmas relating to theology, we must always take the writings of old saints with a grain of salt and be mindful of context

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Maybe we should look at how discipline as a whole was implemented during this particular time period. I remember Augustine saying something about being hit at school in his Confessions.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

So; was slavery morally okay back then?

Ask the people who lived in his time period

I’m asking you. Unless you think morality changes based on society?

Alex337:

then Augustine was preaching an immoral act.

He was and we learned not to commit that act.

There we go. So he was wrong.

Does that sound like whipping someone to the bone?

It sounds like beating a human being. Is it okay if it just breaks the skin a little? How about livid bruises? What if I beat them in such a way that I don’t leave a mark, is that better still?

And I am fine with that. So long as you and @wkj_123 agree that this was human error for listening to the society at the time, and that when dealing with social customs and not doctrines and dogmas relating to theology, we must always take the writings of old saints with a grain of salt

I believe theologians can be wrong and Augustine doesn’t need defending. He preached the wrong thing. I don’t precisely care why, of course he was influenced by his time but we aren’t and we should but defend those ideas. We need to admit the fault in them.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

It is kind of interesting to try to look at these sorts of things from an “objective standpoint.”

 

[theCardinalbird]

I’m asking you. Unless you think morality changes based on society?

Well then I’d have to say it is an immoral act, though people from that time period would disagree with me (which is the point I was trying to make)

It sounds like beating a human being. Is it okay if it just breaks the skin a little? How about livid bruises? What if I beat them in such a way that I don’t leave a mark, is that better still?

I’m just trying to show that the quote wasn’t saying to beat the person to the bone.

I believe theologians can be wrong and Augustine doesn’t need defending. He preached the wrong thing. I don’t precisely care why, of course he was influenced by his time but we aren’t and we should but defend those ideas. We need to admit the fault in them.

I was referring to the doctrines and dogmas of the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, etc. that don’t need a social background to analyze. Probably should have phrased that better. You are right, we shouldn’t defend immoral actions, but we must stay mindful of the person, not the idea. Perhaps that is the distinction ive failed to make in this discussion.

Also that quote that sparked this whole thread, I never found it and I am not sure if its authentic.

Also just read a little bit on Augustine. He wasn’t a terror to slaves:

https://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=percaritatem&e=com

 

[Alex337]

I’m sure that relatively he was just fine to slaves. But there in lies the problem.

And by all means we need to take into account when and where a person was in order to form their opinion. But with people like Augustine we need to be very clear that they are, and were, morally incorrect. Even if the majority agreed with them.

What’s right isn’t always popular, what’s popular isn’t always right.

 

[theCardinalbird]

But with people like Augustine we need to be very clear that they are, and were, morally incorrect. Even if the majority agreed with them.

What’s right isn’t always popular, what’s popular isn’t always right.

and that is correct (though not all of Augustines works are wrong). But I still have to wonder. That quote that sparked the whole discussion. Where did it come from? Which manuscript? I never brought it, but rather another poster did. If it is authentic, perhaps we missed the entire context of it (but nevertheless slavery and beating slaves is wrong).

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

But with people like Augustine we need to be very clear that they are, and were, morally incorrect. Even if the majority agreed with them.

What’s right isn’t always popular, what’s popular isn’t always right.

and that is correct (though not all of Augustines works are wrong). But I still have to wonder. That quote that sparked the whole discussion. Where did it come from? Which manuscript? I never brought it, but rather another poster did. If it is authentic, perhaps we missed the entire context of it (but nevertheless slavery and beating slaves is wrong).

I’m afraid I didn’t post it, you’d have to check in the original thread.