I doubt that is true as blanket statement. As with every other issue we have discussed about Christianity and the Catholic Church: you have the behavior of individuals, and you have the teaching and behavior of the whole. Just like any other belief system. You don’t stop going to doctors because some doctors do abortions.Secret_Square:
The Church is supposed to be a light in the darkness, but it proved unwilling to speak out against such travesties.
Why do you “have to assume” that?
You’re suggesting that the Bible doesn’t instruct on how to increase the practice of slavery or to harm slaves without fear of punishment?
The whole Bible doesn’t. The OT on its own does.
Philemon doesn’t call for abolition explicitly but it is hinted.
There are a few reasons. The first of which is that the Church has shown endorsement of slavery in the past. The Council of Gangra (which was made law by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon), Dum Diversas, Sicut Dudum, Creator Omnium, Regimini Gregis, the 4th Council of Toledo all endorsed the practice. Yes, there were those in the Church that spoke out against slavery, but to say I’m wrong that some people in the Church were for slavery you would have to show that everyone was against it. That is simply not the case.
So the speech God gives to his people starting at Exodus 20 is not a set of instructions? The speech that starts with the 10 Commandments? The one that is all tort, telling people how to behave and what to do?
Because 1 Timothy isn’t part of the Bible, the Word of God? (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Why did God change? If God was against slavery why did his Church take so gosh darn long to act accordingly?
That’s a good question, which I haven’t put much thought into this subject. For the Early Church, like I said earlier, changing political and economic systems was not the priority.
Cause…people are human beings?ATraveller:
Why did God change? If God was against slavery why did his Church take so gosh darn long to act accordingly?
We can put aside what other nations were doing at the time since God explicitly says:
The excuse that we normally see explaining that the Israelites lived in a culture where there was slavery withers under the mildest of scrutiny. Also remember God told his people what to wear, what to eat, how to act with each other. God was the culture. He told them to do things that other cultures didn’t and to not do things other cultures did. There was no excuse for God to tell his people it was ok to enslave others.
And they couldn’t point to a passage in the Bible that said not to enslave another.
Frankly, there are many things in life to deal with. When I have time, I’ll look at some less pressing ones with more care.
Is there a point to this? The Church is composed of people. It was unfortunate. They had grounds not to keep the system but chose not too. Gangra was a local council and the Oriental Orthodox Church among others rejected the council (not necessarily on the topic of slavery) according to Wikipedia. Ecumenical councils, let alone local ones, aren’t binding for the whole of Christianity as many Eastern Churches demonstrate and especially with Protestants.
To me a deity that is supposed to be love itself explicitly spells out how to engage in a system of cruelty against others goes beyond just “challenging”. I’m thankful that our history is populated by those where accepting slavery wasn’t good enough for them, and who would not accept it.
As I mentioned above, Gangra (and several other early Councils) were considered law by the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.
Is it really?
Yes, they were called abolitionists. Many of them were Christians who fought against slavery despite what the Bible said about the topic.Mike_from_NJ:
Is it really?
Levitcus was abolished remember. Surely you know how people react when Levitcus is used against homosexuality.