Re:Claude's New Constitution
by Paracompact on Wednesday January 21, 2026 @06:50PM
(#46713347)
You mean well in ignoring their argument, but please don't let people get away with whitewashing history! It was not a "different kind of slavery." See my comment. The chattel slavery incurred by the Israelites on foreign peoples was significant. Pointing out that standards of slavery toward other (male, noncriminal) Israelites were different than toward foreigners is the same rhetoric as pointing out that from 1600-1800, Britain may have engaged in chattel slavery across the African continent, but at least they only threw their fellow British citizens in debtors' prisons.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Good point. That wasn't my intention. I meant to steelman his argument, to show that even under those conditions, his argument makes absolute no sense.
You are still selecting one verse to interpret an entire culture. Misleading at best. And saying this is "white washing history" is silly. Continue reading the Bible and you'll see that it is the Christian Worldview that eventually ended slavery.
Re:Claude's New Constitution
by DonHopkins on Thursday January 29, 2026 @11:54PM
(#46820662)
"Christianity eventually ended slavery"
Christians also defended slavery for 1800 years using these exact texts. The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 specifically to support slavery. Confederate VP Alexander Stephens called it "ordained of God."
Abolitionists existed despite these passages, not because of them. They had to argue against the plain text. If the Bible clearly opposed slavery, why did it take until the 19th century for Christians to notice?
The abolitionist argument was: "The spirit of Christianity opposes slavery even though the letter permits it." That's moral reasoning overriding scripture — which means scripture isn't the objective standard. You're proving my point.