Religion V: Utopianism, Fundamentalism, Apothesis

[Wise Fool]

It seems #5 is merely preaching acceptance in a way that appeals to slaves in a slave-holding society. This is meant in the same way that preaching acceptance to anyone is ever meant: being able to accept the realities of your situation on an emotional level so that you can move past your [anger, outrage, grief, whatever] however justified your gut level instinctual primal passions may be [and are in the case of slavery; but overturning millennia of social injustice isn't often the answer to someone's personal unhappiness at said injustice, if only because it is itself a long, bloody process].

Which is to say, if a lot of your target demographic is of social class B [whether B means slave or merchant or whatever] you will tend to tailor your media toward that demographic. Which is again to say, 'you' might not, but the documents that survive will be those that have appealed to the right peoples at the right times, and not those burned or forgotten or dismissed; a bit of an evolutionary process as far as spiritual (or any) literature goes. I mean we all know Shakespeare, right, but how many of his contemporaries?

[Gears of the Beast]

How the fuck is being told to obey and fear your master appealing to a slave? That's his winning strategy for appealing to slaves? Just like his winning strategy for appealing to women is telling them "22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" as he does in Eph 5:22 when he starts this whole list of instructions for various members of the Christian household, because that's what this is; instructions for specific members of a Christian household - not some vague way of preaching acceptance to a society with lots of slaves.

[Ormond]

Wow, what a very different view of "morality". Is the implication here that advising children to obey their parents and fathers not to exasperate their children is immoral? For the great majority of family situations, that's very good and moral advice.

And I think that advising slaves to obey their masters, either in the ancient Roman empire or in the antebellum South, was a very moral thing to do. I think that advising people to do something which would be likely to get them whipped, starved, or killed is one of the most immoral things I can think of.

I think one can legitimately criticize Paul for not explicitly advising slave owners to free their slaves. But I believe that advising the slaves to obey their masters in that sort of cultural context was the only moral thing for him to do.

[Castel]

How the fuck is being told to obey and fear your master appealing to a slave? That's his winning strategy for appealing to slaves? Just like his winning strategy for appealing to women is telling them "22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" as he does in Eph 5:22 when he starts this whole list of instructions for various members of the Christian household, because that's what this is; instructions for specific members of a Christian household - not some vague way of preaching acceptance to a society with lots of slaves.

IF that was the sum of his strategy then it worked really fucking well.

I mean, are women in Ancient Rome sitting around being offended at being told to obey their husbands?

If anything lipservice is being paid here to the idea that, at the end of the day, there is some absolute deity that will regulate the privileged and that their privilege is just a temporary and illusory state of things.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

And I think that advising slaves to obey their masters, either in the ancient Roman empire or in the antebellum South, was a very moral thing to do. I think that advising people to do something which would be likely to get them whipped, starved, or killed is one of the most immoral things I can think of.

So the Underground Railroad was immoral?

[Wise Fool]

How the fuck is being told to obey and fear your master appealing to a slave? That's his winning strategy for appealing to slaves?

I don't think "Slaves, rise up and murder those who would enslave you" would have gone over as well. Good for drama, and crucifix manufacturing though.

[Ormond]

So the Underground Railroad was immoral?

The Underground Railroad was profoundly moral. But you can be sure that the best strategy for slaves who wanted to escape on the Underground Railroad was to obey their masters as much as possible until the day they were able to escape.

And I don't thinl there was anything comparable to an underground railroad in the ancient Roman Empire.

P.S. And the Underground Railroad was moral precisely because it provided a way for people to escape from slavery with a better chance of success and safety. For some free person to advise slaves to run away from their masters with absolutely no plan or no help from such an organization would have been much less moral.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

If the Underground Railroad is moral, then it can't be immoral to disobey masters or advise someone to do something which would be likely to get them whipped, starved, or killed- the Underground Railroad entailed these things.

And slaves are not, in any case, told to obey just enough and disobey at the opportune moment. I'm not sure we have any reason to believe servility isn't being seen here as a good in itself- I suspect it was, instead, an injunction stemming from a worldview which held slavery as right and part of natural order. We don't need to fault an ancient text for not knowing better, but there is also no reason to defend it. "Slaves, obey your masters" is just not a very good moral rule- at best it can be resuscitated if you're really intent on seeing it as some kind of limited circumstancial pragmatic advice. Hardly the stuff of moral absolutes.

[Wise Fool]

Absolutely not a moral absolute. I simply don't see such parts as being worthy of my moral outrage. It's easy to look with modern sensibilities at a large number of aspects of the ancient world, specifically at their reflection in religious texts of the period, and judge with condemnation. Surely, (we might think), if we lived back then, we would be the voice championing liberty and equality. But we probably wouldn't, and if we didn't, would that make us bad people?

[Gears of the Beast]

If anything lipservice is being paid here to the idea that, at the end of the day, there is some absolute deity that will regulate the privileged and that their privilege is just a temporary and illusory state of things.

I think more so to the idea that enslavement and submission isn't such a bad thing after all, we all must be slaves to god anyway so why not have slaves submit to their masters and women submit to their husbands it just makes everything so much easier!

[Castel]

I think more so to the idea that enslavement and submission isn't such a bad thing after all, we all must be slaves to god anyway so why not have slaves submit to their masters and women submit to their husbands it just makes everything so much easier!

I don't see how that touches what I said? Everyone being a slave does not imply that everything goes.

In fact, your own quotation has the slavers and parents being exhorted to themselves behave, since God is watching them.

[Gears of the Beast]

I don't see how that touches what I said? Everyone being a slave does not imply that everything goes.

In fact, your own quotation has the slavers and parents being exhorted to themselves behave, since God is watching them.

I don't think you're wrong, I just think the main thing the Big J is saying is that you all have to submit to god anyway:

"submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord"

"since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven"

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

The explicit and intentional juxtaposition of being a slave to x and a slave to god is pretty telling.

[Gears of the Beast]

Phil Blackwood 'forced to sleep on pallet' in Myanmar prison after insulting Buddhism

New Zealand man jailed in Myanmar for using an image of Buddha to promote a local bar on Facebook is enduring appalling conditions in prison, including being forced to sleep on a wooden pallet, his parents claim.

Phil Blackwood, 32, who managed the VGastro Bar in Yangon, was sentenced earlier this month to 2½ years in prison after he used a psychedelic image of Buddha wearing headphones to promote a cheap drinks night at the venue.

Another manager at the bar, Htut Ko Ko Lwin, and bar owner, Tun Thurein, were also sentenced to 2½ years jail with hard labour for insulting religion.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I know I'm late in the debate, not that I have much interest in participating. But for what it's worth, Ephesians is one of the disputed Pauline letters, with most scholars believing it to be written by a later hand.

[Jo498]

For all I know the *old* testament while it does not in principle question slavery/servitude is probably the most anti-slavery document from its time. Almost everything concerning servants is preluded by the frequent reminder that the Jews used to be slaves in Egypt and the liberation from this servitude is the "foundational myth" of the Jewish people until today. Therefore servants should be treated well. There were slaves but they could not be killed by their masters (in sharp distinction to later Roman mores), they were to respect the Sabbath holiday, there were rules agains selling yourself or family members into servitude, indentured servants were freed after some intervall (jubilee/yovel year), if a master slept with a female servant he had to take her as a (additional) wife etc.

It seems that the anti-slavery stance of the early christians has been exaggerated in the past and that overall they would not abolish the practice. (That there was far less slavery in the middle ages had more economic than religious reasons.) But again, they followed the Jewish model insofar that slaves are to be treated well and treated as humans. And try finding something like that in Christ there is neither master nor slave etc. from other ancient sources. Ideas like this one or that every human being is created in god's image are clearly a basis for abolition.

To my knowledge no Hellenist philosophical school was fundamentally against slavery (not even the Stoics) so the early christians were probably still the most anti-slavery there was at this time.

[Gears of the Beast]

I know I'm late in the debate, not that I have much interest in participating. But for what it's worth, Ephesians is one of the disputed Pauline letters, with most scholars believing it to be written by a later hand.

True, the 'slaves obey your masters' thing does appear a lot in the NT though, not just in Paul's epistles IIRC.

For all I know the *old* testament while it does not in principle question slavery/servitude is probably the most anti-slavery document from its time. Almost everything concerning servants is preluded by the frequent reminder that the Jews used to be slaves in Egypt and the liberation from this servitude is the "foundational myth" of the Jewish people until today. Therefore servants should be treated well. There were slaves but they could not be killed by their masters (in sharp distinction to later Roman mores), they were to respect the Sabbath holiday, there were rules agains selling yourself or family members into servitude, indentured servants were freed after some intervall (jubilee/yovel year), if a master slept raped a female servant he had to take her as a (additional) wife etc.

Wow, what a dishonest way to frame it. It says that you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die within 2 days. It explicitly says if they don't die within 2 days it's all good. Interesting spin.

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

[Ormond]

True, the 'slaves obey your masters' thing does appear a lot in the NT though, not just in Paul's epistles IIRC.

Sorry, I don't think you remember that correctly. In the concordance I own I could not find any such admonition in a New Testament book which has NOT been traditionally attributed to Paul.

[TerraPrime]

I think it's a bit... odd, for modern Christians to apologize for the pro-slavery content of a historical text born out of a period where slavery was the norm. I guess this stems from the problem of Christian theology that posits an eternal God as the sole moral arbiter of all matters - all matters of morality from the beginning of time to the end of this world falls under His responsiblity. If the holy Spirit inspires Paul or some other people to write "slaves, obey your masters," then it becomes the burden of the Christians to explain it away.

I personally don't get the need. Modern Christians are happy to simply say "you know, that thing in the OT was wrong, and we no longer do it. That doesn't detract from the message of Christ." So why not the pro-slavery message. Why argue that the advice for a slave to obey the master is right? Just own that it was a historical document from a different cultural context and we no longer believe that to be moral.

But yes, I would highly dispute that the order to obey is itself a moral advice, absent of any other corroborating evidence that there's also to be an uprising or a reckoning eventually. Because, without those, then the advice to abide by the institution of slavery cannot be distinguished between an act of preserving a perversed institution versus an act looking out for the welfare of the slaves.

Now, Christianity has always been good about preaching that our suffering on Earth is temporary and the less fortunate we are here the richer the reward in heaven. So maybe that's the implicit message? If your life really sucks now, like, for instance, you're a slave, that's ok, because you will be richly rewarded in heaven. So, just abide for now and do what you're told, like a good slave. Your reward will come when you die.

[Wise Fool]

I think saying it's "pro-slavery" is like saying it's "pro government." Or pro-Big Government. Or Pro-Nanny-State-Big-Brother. Render unto Caesar? But Caesar -- depending on which one -- was a madman dictator, or else just a dictator! Does the Bible condone totalitarianism? Maybe the Bible is anti-capitalist. Or anti-socialist. I don't know, but there's room enough for everyone to get outraged if we try.

[TerraPrime]

I think saying it's "pro-slavery" is like saying it's "pro government." Or pro-Big Government. Or Pro-Nanny-State-Big-Brother. Render unto Caesar? But Caesar -- depending on which one -- was a madman dictator, or else just a dictator! Does the Bible condone totalitarianism? Maybe the Bible is anti-capitalist. Or anti-socialist. I don't know, but there's room enough for everyone to get outraged if we try.

I read most of Acts and Corinthians (and the Gospels) but certainly that's been over 20 years ago, but were there any parts of the NT where it's stated that the institution of slavery is wrong and an offense to God? In the OT, Yaweh was upset because His chosen people were enslaved, not because there was enslavement. I think having textural evidence that the Bible, as a moral code that transcends time and culture, condemns slavery, would go a long way to justifying those few sentences.

I think there are some cases to be made that the Bible is anti-capitalist, as with Jesus' parable of the rich man and the camel, as well as the organization of the early Church as basically communes.

i also think it's a bit dismissive to say that anyone can get outraged by anything "if we try." You make it sound like we're seeing offense for the sake of finding offensive material, when in fact, the Bible's mention of slavery and its reaction to slavery is... plain to read. To many Christians, though not all and even most, the Bible is the word of eternal truth and the way through which they know God. It is highly relevant to talk about the parts of the Bible that are no longer applicable to modern standards of equality, imo, in understanding what the Bible is.