If we look at what we Christians regard as the ultimate moral authority - the teachings of Christ and his apostles - then, yes, the New Testament clearly says to treat slaves decently. That really can’t be denied.
Except Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law which allowed most beatings without penalty.
What many secularists take issue with is why Jesus supposedly didn’t “explicitly” abolish or condemn slavery.
Again, not only did he not condemn it he gave instructions that demanded slaves do what is required to continue the practice.
Imagine a scenario where you tell me about the troubles you are having with your wife. I give you instruction on how to chain her up in your basement so that you won’t get caught. When you try this she runs to the police, the police go to you, and you send them to me. Can I with a straight face claim that I wasn’t explicitly advocating chaining up a woman in a basement?
This brings up a question I have never heard adequately answered - if you think Jesus had authority as a moral teacher (whether you believe He was Divine or not), why weren’t you at Mass with me this Sunday, partaking of the Eucharist?
That doesn’t make any sense. A person can think Jesus is a moral teacher without thinking that he is a) a god, and b) transubstantiated in wafer.
Clearly, Jesus commanded many things… Do you (or anyone you know) do all those things?
I come from a large Roman Catholic family and I have a few relatives who do treat women with respect, follow the Commandments, work with the poor, and go to church regularly. I think it’s ok to say that Jesus was smart in commanding that people be good to each other without making the leap that he spoke to the devil in the desert and got a retribution against a stingy fig tree.
(I’m not saying I do consistently, by the way, or that I am any better than you - I’m a sinner, as are we all.)
Even if we set aside all those other messy teachings about His Body and the Blood which you probably don’t believe - if you, or anyone else, occupying a position of, as you said, “love, compassion, sympathy and honesty” can’t consistently do all those things…what makes you think everyone would obey His rule regarding slavery?
This is another common argument I hear that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Since some people will probably ignore the command, why bother saying it? Some people are still going to murder, why command against it? Obey the Sabbath? Not if the Giants are trying to get back in the playoff hunt.
In the Bible, God has no qualms of making many demands of us, some great and some small. The idea that he would decide not to make one of the most crucial demands because at least some people might not abide doesn’t wash in the slightest.
This is often a fundamental failing in the arguments of some (not all) atheists - the belief that to know is all we need to do. That all we need is to have the right path pointed out to us, and we will choose it and then become better persons. St. Paul was a far better judge of human nature - he recognized that we know the right thing to do, but still fail to do it: “For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do.”
I definitely don’t believe that a set of rules will cause people to follow them. Just look above where I talked about murder. This really all comes down to showing the faults into one of the greatest ideas in christianity, that God is good.
As I’ve mentioned, my focus
isn’t on the actions of the people who follow what is said to be God’s word, but the words themselves.
As a non-christian I’ll hear various arguments which revolve around the concept of God being good and perfect. They’ll ask where I get my morals from and why I wouldn’t want to get them from God Almighty. The answer comes from the Bible itself. I’m not here trying to make people give up their christianity, but when a person has a question such as like the OP did I find it vitally important that they don’t brush it aside. I know from your posts that you’ve tackled these types of questions head-on (and let me apologize for not delving into your wonderful post about the different types of slavery in history which weren’t labeled as such). My brother is like you in that way. What irks to me no end is when people try to blow it off by adding to or taking away from the words themselves. “If he survives a day or two” is not something to be taken lightly.or misinterpeted.
(The same failing to understand human nature occurs in the atheist argument that “If God wanted us to be good, why doesn’t he just appear over Times Square?”, or “If God wanted all people to follow him, why did he appear in bronze age Jerusalem instead of in modern times?” Again, we have shown no propensity as a species to consistently act with love, compassion, sympathy, and honesty…even when we know we should. What difference would a divine light show over Times Square make?)
That’s a topic for another time, I think!
Clearly, Jesus disliked slavery.
One of the few things we can agree on is how we disagree with that sentence.
Clearly also, he did explicitly condemn it.
Clearly also, his padawans condemned it. Both St. Paul and St. John did explicitly condemn it, and they weren’t known for freelancing their ideas. The times Jesus spent before his death and after it were obviously spent discussing Important Things, and the fact that both these key figures condemned slavery (although neither were themselves slaves) is the best evidence that an anti-slavery position was part of the Deposit of Faith left to His followers.
Whether the saints did or not isn’t my main thurst here, but if they did it was in opposition of what the Old Testament says.
