Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are Good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. -- 1 Peter 2: 18-20
The institution of slavery is one of the ugliest blots on humanity's record. The discomforting fact for religious believers is that the "particular institution" was morally acceptable during an earlier, more religious time in our nation's history. It is ironic that while many people look to the Bible for moral guidance, the "good book" does not contain a single condemnatory word about human bondage. This irony was not lost on Southern **** owners.
Many biblical stories also served as rationalizations for slavery. Probably the most commonly used story was that concerning the "curse of Canaan." In this story, Noah curses Ham's youngest son Canaan by making him a "servant of servants." This story became twisted and contorted over the centuries and ultimately served as the primary scriptural basis for anti-black racism. There was ample historical precedent for using the story as a religious apologetic for slavery, as white Christians had argued for centuries that the story meant that all primitive and backward black peoples were in fact descendents of Ham.
Some **** owners displayed even more appalling gall. Howell Cobb (1815-1868), one of the great "Georgia Triumvirate" (along with Robert Toombs and Jefferson Davis), stated in 1856 that the lot of the **** was due to his own "wickedness."
The greatest affront of all was seen in the avid effort made by certain southern Christians to convert their slaves. The irony of trying to make the **** embrace the religion that was being used to justify their enslavement seemed lost on them. Some of these white masters went so far as to insist that the only way for a **** to attain salvation was to remain enslaved.
However, many **** owners were skeptical about converting their human property. Nonetheless, it could be argued that the effort to convert blacks was one of the major reasons why there were so few insurrections in our history.
Christianity, like almost all religions, promotes a social hierarchical system which always favors the **** elites. The fundamental cause of Christian racism can be glimpsed in the statement made by Congregationalist minister Josiah Strong who said that Christianity compels its followers to "fulfill the missionary charge of world evangelization." Thus there is an inherent **** in Christianity that impels its adherents to go forth and convert others. Looked at from the perspective of those "others," this simply means that Christians are unable to leave anyone alone who does not happen to be Christian. Thus, there is a fundamental intolerance inherent in Christianity that makes its followers hostile to any system that differs from it. This attitude extended outward from the pulpit to the congregation, and from there to the basic infrastructure of American governmental policy.
Further proof of the racism inherent in Christianity can be seen in the simple fact that while may of the anti-slavery advocates spoke of love and compassion, this was meant only in the context of conversion. This point cannot be overemphasized. The **** (or anyone remaining unconverted) was not to receive love or any of the other supposed "Christian virtues" unless he or she first converted to Christianity. Thus, brotherhood to the Christians meant a brotherhood composed exclusively of fellow Christians. Those of differing faiths or of no faith were excluded and consequently subject to scorn, discrimination and social ostracism Shame was a powerful weapon in nineteenth-century America.
The pro-Christian bias that mars so many of our history texts today can be seen in the way the abolitionist movement is treated. The Second Great Awakening, beginning around 1800, is usually cited as an important causative factor in the abolitionist movement that followed. However, this is revisionist history. The implication here is that Christianity was at the heart of the movement to free the slaves. Nothing could be further from the truth. The eradication of human bondage is in fact a by-product of the Enlightenment and the Age of Rationalism, secular reactions against the 1500-year-old stranglehold Christianity had on the throat of Europe. This movement, which swept across Europe at the end of the seventeenth and into the eighteenth centuries, profoundly affected the men who founded this nation. They founded the first governmental system in history entirely free from the shackles of religion. Thus did the secular realm enter American lives. Only then did the abolitionists come on the scene. By no stretch of the imagination can religious impulses or devotion be cited as causative factors. If so, why didn't the abolitionist movement begin after the first Great Awakening? Did that movement's leaders, George Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards, cry out in indignation against human bondage? They did not. Was the anti-slavery banner raised in the colonies as a result of this re-awakening of Christian sentiment? IT was not. Slavery was not eliminated in this country until secularism had attained an ideological foothold. Certainly, many of the leaders of the abolitionist movement were religious. But, although they most likely were not aware of it, they were acting on humanistic, rather than religious impulses.
Now that the blight of slavery has been removed, or at least ameliorated from human society, the church predictably steps in and takes the credit. In the righteous tones of the morally duplicitous, they claim that their faith was the motivating factor, that the **** owners weren't "real" Christians, that the entire history of slavery only proves their contention that humans are inherently evil. Their unquestioning flocks, already convinced of Christianity's merits, nod their heads in obsequious agreement.
There is nothing in the Bible (or, for that matter, in any other "holy" writings) that calls for the downtrodden to rise up and free themselves. Except perhaps for a few recalcitrant southerners, Americans today view slavery as a most grievous wrong. Unfortunately, few of them recognize that the Bible which they revere is at best ambiguous and at worst openly supportive of the institution. On this most basic moral question, the Bible is useless as a moral guide. And if it fails us here, why should we trust it in anything else?
There is much talk these days in Christian circles about the need to return to "traditional values." These people do not need to return to morality, but to discover it.
Good question but the choices in the poll are over simplified. You see I am a Christian and I had to really sit down research and do some soul searching to find the answer to this question. Slavery is no doubt THE MOST DETREMENTAL thing that has happened to our people since our history on this earth we are suffering for now and most of our problems as a community can be traced back to slavery (light skin vs. dark skin, lack of enthusiasm towards education, lack of unity, lack of self, list goes on and on...) However, I think that slavery was used as a vehicle to promote Christianity to the African people. Was it God's will, that is arguable, but was it used as a vehicle most definitely.
That was a very interesting verse, and let me go ahead and give the whole 18-20 so that no one is left ignorant of this (very nice scripture, but the context you put it in is off)
Reading from the King James Version:
18. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also the forward.
19. For this is thankworthy (sidenote: worthy of praise or thanks), if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20. For what glory is it if, when ye buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
A VERY interesting portion of the bible, which actually goes on to talk about women submissing to men. It reads ( 3:1):
1. Likewise ye wives be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on apparel;
4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is the sight of God of great price.
The reason I brought that up is in great significance to the pretext and how the meaning has been misconstrued with its societal application.
Slavery during that time was forced and however wrong it may be, it was Godly of them that they were to serve the people (slaves could be people that did wrong and now have to serve someone else which is why the words **** and servant are interchangeable) and they were meant to do it with a kind heart SO THAT THE GLORY OF GOD could be seen. *points to the last part where it says "This is acceptable to God".
I know Him, and I don't believe there is any justification for binding a people to make them subject because of the color of their skin. Think about the Exodus people - Moses took them people out of slavery with the power of God behind him. War is Justified in the bible and if you dont believe fighting for our unalienable right to be free isnt one of them then I cant convince you otherwise.
About the second, some women believe that they are mandated, by the bible, to serve and be under man. You'll have to understand that for as many versus as there are about women being good Under their husbands, there are just as many that say that they are to treat them as their equal. The man is made, By God, to be the head of the household and the woman is to be His. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles. Now maybe because you grew up in this American society you feel all empowered to do your own thing and belittle your own man. Im just showing you Scripture people.
So no, the Blacks of America would fight a good fight if there ever was another civil war. I wish that white man would try to put some chains on me....
And God took a rib of Adam and made Eve -
On purpose.
Because thats where she was meant to be. Not a bone above him or below him, but the one closest to his heart, right beside him. Think about it.
And God took a rib of Adam and made Eve -
On purpose.
Because thats where she was meant to be. Not a bone above him or below him, but the one closest to his heart, right beside him. Think about it.
Well..Adamn couldn't spare his arm, leg or hand..So what other bone can you spare and still survive?? Give them one rib..
And God took a rib of Adam and made Eve -
On purpose.
Because thats where she was meant to be. Not a bone above him or below him, but the one closest to his heart, right beside him. Think about it.
Well..Adamn couldn't spare his arm, leg or hand..So what other bone can you spare and still survive?? Give them one rib..
To have a woman? I wouldve given up all the bones in both of my legs to have one. Except it couldnt be Eve tho....she triflin...
not neccessarrily His will, but his plan for us to get us to where we are know and where we're going...
*starts singin "where you are going?" by dave matthews band*
And God took a rib of Adam and made Eve -
On purpose.
Because thats where she was meant to be. Not a bone above him or below him, but the one closest to his heart, right beside him. Think about it.
Well..Adamn couldn't spare his arm, leg or hand..So what other bone can you spare and still survive?? Give them one rib..
To have a woman? I wouldve given up all the bones in both of my legs to have one. Except it couldnt be Eve tho....she triflin...
The fact of the matter is that the Bible is a book, written, revised and translated countless times by the hand of man. In each translation a little is lost, a little is added. Throughout the years the Bible has been used to justify so much, all of it basically to hold down what was always thought to be inferior or unclean to others. While I do proclaim my belief that Christ did indeed exist and a strong belief in God, I'm not going to foolhardedly believe everything written by mans hand because man is inherently flawed and biased.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible is a book, written, revised and translated countless times by the hand of man. In each translation a little is lost, a little is added. Throughout the years the Bible has been used to justify so much, all of it basically to hold down what was always thought to be inferior or unclean to others. While I do proclaim my belief that Christ did indeed exist and a strong belief in God, I'm not going to foolhardedly believe everything written by mans hand because man is inherently flawed and biased.
i must agree with that mos definatily i was talking about this to one of my friends that didnt want to listen to me.....they do change the bible from the old testament to the new testament ect...... i may not have read the whole bible and that doesnt make me a hethen(as my sista always calls me wen i dnt go to church) its jst that i dnt no wich part is true or wich 1 has been modified to benifit Man kind
