Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

False, slavery was dominant in the USA up until 1860s, and in Christianity. Slavery may have been ended in the British Isles, but it continued by the British in India elsewhere, and in the Caribbean. It was 'some' Christians and secular humanists that were abolishonists. There are considerable writings against slavery inspired by Enlightenment philosophers.

The year your faith began was in the middle of the Civil war which ended Slavery in the US, and it was ended in the British Empire. Your religion just jumped on the Bandwagon. And yes there were Enlightenment philosophers who were against slavery, but it was Christian activists that got it done. And AGAIN list the "secular humanists" who were involved in the abolition movement. I will be waiting.

No where in the Bible is stated that it was a sin to buy and sell slaves.

Yet it was sin to kidnap and that largely was what slavery was fueled by in the West. And I keep asking you - why is slavery immoral in the first place?

Indentured servitude was common among the Jews, but so was the buying. selling and owning of foreign slaves.

There is no difference between indentured servitude and slavery in the Old Testament.

No, because no where in the Bible, Torah, Tanakh nor the Quran does it specifically reject slavery.

That is funny because people like Hanna More, the Quakers, the Stowe family, etc...argued against slavery on biblical grounds:

The mind of the abolitionists

Christian abolitionists came from across the denominational spectrum and from various parts of the British Atlantic world. Yet throughout their varied writings, a number of key themes appear again and again.

‘Of one blood’: the idea of brotherhood

Abolitionists believed passionately in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Indeed, the campaign’s logo (devised by Josiah Wedgwood) was an image of a manacled slave on his knees beseeching his captor: ‘Am I not a man and a brother?’ Antislavery activism relied on the conviction that all people were made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27) and precious in his sight. God was the Father of all mankind, all nations were his ‘offspring’, ‘of one blood’ (Acts 17:26). Disturbed that blacks ‘stand convicted – of a darker skin!’, the Anglican Evangelical Hannah More urged her readers to ‘Respect his image which they bear…They still are men, and men shou’d still be free’.[11] ‘Africans and Europeans, Pagans and Christians, are all on a level’, wrote the Calvinist Baptist Abraham Booth. Oppressed Africans ‘are brethren of the human kind’.[12] ‘We are the common offspring of one universal Parent’, wrote the Anglican Thomas Bradshaw, ‘with whom there is no respect of persons’.[13] When William Cowper contemplated slavery he lamented that ‘the natural bond/Of brotherhood is sever’d’.[14] Every reader of Scripture should know, wrote Cowper,

That souls have no discriminating hue,
Alike important in their Maker’s view;
That none are free from blemish since the fall,
And love divine has paid one price for all.[15]



The doctrines of creation, fall and redemption underscored human equality in the eyes of God.

The Christian belief in the fundamental unity of the human race clashed with fashionable theories of polygenesis and African inferiority, promoted by infidel philosophers. As Davis explains, ‘early antislavery writers like James Ramsay and Granville Sharp repeatedly identified the theory of racial inferiority with Hume, Voltaire, and materialistic philosophy in general; they explicitly presented their attacks on slavery as a vindication of Christianity, moral accountability, and the unity of mankind’.[16] Hannah More deplored the new philosophical racism:

Perish th’ illiberal thought which wou’d debase
The native genius of the sable race
Perish the proud philosophy, which sought
To rob them of the pow’rs of equal thought!
Does then th’ immortal principle within
Change with the casual colour of a skin?[17]

The most eloquent testimony against ideas of racial inferiority came from black converts to Christianity. Abolitionists pointed to the writings of accomplished Africans: the letters of Ignatius Sancho, the poems of Phillis Wheatley, and the autobiography of Olaudah Equiano.[18] Equiano himself pointed to Scripture. Commenting on a book arguing ‘that the Negro race is an inferior species of mankind’, he wrote indignantly: ‘Oh fool! See the 17th chapter of the Acts, verse 26: “God hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth”’. Working out the logical implications of the text, Equiano argued in favour of racial intermarriage, and went on to marry Susannah Cullen of Soham in Cambridgeshire.[19]



‘Deliverance to the captives’: the idea of liberty slavery

Abolitionists believed that common humanity entailed equal rights, especially the right to liberty. Because liberty was a gift of the Creator, men were not free to dispose of it by selling themselves into slavery, nor could they lawfully deprive anyone else of their liberty by force. The slave-traders’ claim that Africans were now the property of Europeans was without foundation in natural law, and constituted a violation of natural rights. The Scottish philosophers who developed this line of argument were building on the Christian natural law tradition – Francis Hutcheson was a Church of Scotland minister, and James Beattie was a well known critic of Hume’s irreligion. Their argument had great appeal. ‘Liberty’, wrote John Wesley, ‘is the right of every human creature, as soon as he breathes the vital air. And no human can deprive him of that right, which he derives from the law of nature’.[20] Hannah More also used the language of human rights...

[shunyadragon]

One of the primary reasons that the South seceded was that slavery wasn't dominant and was becoming less and less so.

Actually . . . false the invention of the cotton gin increased the need for slavery. By the testimony of the leaders of the Southern states keeping slavery in the South was the primary reason for the Civil War. Don;t try and rewrite history. Facts are facts.

[shunyadragon]

The year your faith began was in the middle of the Civil war which ended Slavery in the US, and it was ended in the British Empire. Your religion just jumped on the Bandwagon. And yes there were Enlightenment philosophers who were against slavery, but it was Christian activists that got it done. And AGAIN list the "secular humanists" who were involved in the abolition movement. I will be waiting.

I did and gave a reference, and you are avoiding the reference. Still waiting . . .

The Baha'i Faith actually began in 1844. No bandwagon here, because slavery actually did not end with the Civil War. Forced Penal Servitude remained up to the early 20th century, and slavery remained in other places in the world like India and the Caribbean.

Yet it was sin to kidnap and that largely was what slavery was fueled by in the West. And I keep asking you - why is slavery immoral in the first place?

No you have not been keep asking me. If slavery was never condemned in the Bible, and it was described as an accepted institution as buying, selling and owning slaves why are you asking the question in bold above.

There is no difference between indentured servitude and slavery in the Old Testament.

Your self imposed ignorance of the Bible is appalling. The Old Testament describes specifically Indentured servitude fo be Hebrews indentured to Hebrews, and Foreign slaves bought, sold and owned by Hebrews.

That is funny because people like Hanna More, the Quakers, the Stowe family, etc...argued against slavery on biblical grounds:

Not funny, because there is nothing in the Bible that forbids any kind of slavery.

[seer]

I did and gave a reference, and you are avoiding the reference. Still waiting . . .

The Baha'i Faith actually began in 1844. No bandwagon here, because slavery actually did not end with the Civil War. Forced Penal Servitude remained up to the early 20th century, and slavery remained in other places in the world like India and the Caribbean.

Shuny you did not list secular humanists who were involved in the abolition movement. Please reference the post. Or stop fibbing...

No you have not been keep asking me. If slavery was never condemned in the Bible, and it was described as an accepted institution as buying, selling and owning slaves why are you asking the question in bold above.

Then answer, why is slavery immoral?

Your self imposed ignorance of the Bible is appalling. The Old Testament describes specifically Indentured servitude fo be Hebrews indentured to Hebrews, and Foreign slaves bought, sold and owned by Hebrews.

Nonsense, Hebrews were sold to each other as slaves, the only difference if that they were offered freedom after seven years. You are an idiot.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he must remain your slave for six years. But in the seventh year you must set him free, without cost to him. 3 If he was single at the time you bought him, he alone must be set free. But if he was married at the time, both he and his wife must be given their freedom. 4 If you give him a wife, and they have children, only the man himself must be set free; his wife and children remain the property of his owner.Exodus 21

Not funny, because there is nothing in the Bible that forbids any kind of slavery.

The point is Shuny that these Christian abolitionists used Bible principles to make their case.

[seer]

You didn't have social cohesion for the slaves - nor for those discriminated against during the Jim Crow era, nor disenfranchised women or closeted LGBT's or Jews or 'furreigners'. But I guess it was cohesive for the majority.

Yes it was cohesive for the majority, and why is that wrong?

[seer]

The Baha'i Faith actually began in 1844. No bandwagon here, because slavery actually did not end with the Civil War. Forced Penal Servitude remained up to the early 20th century, and slavery remained in other places in the world like India and the Caribbean.

So slavery was not formally abolished among Bahaʼis until 1873. Like I said you jumped on the bandwagon!

Baháʼu'lláh formally abolished the practice of slavery among Bahaʼis in the Kitab-i-Aqdas (ca. 1873). The English translation of the relevant section is as follows:

It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God's servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bondslaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things.
Baháʼu'lláh, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 45)[1]

In his letter to Queen Victoria, written to her between 1868 and 1872, Baháʼu'lláh had singled out the action of the British government in using its power to stamp out the world trade in slaves for particular commendation.

We have been informed that thou hast forbidden the trading in slaves, both men and women. This, verily, is what God hath enjoined in this wondrous Revelation. God hath, truly, destined a reward for thee, because of this.
(Baháʼu'lláh, The Proclamation of Baháʼu'lláh, p. 30)[2]

In 1844, when the Báb declared his mission, slavery was still very widespread. When the Báb went on the Hajj pilgrimage in 1844, he was accompanied by Quddús and an Ethiopian slave.[3] The family the Báb was born into possessed several slaves: one was his first tutor, and the subject of a eulogy penned by his young pupil/master in later years, crediting him as having raised him and praises him.[4] The Báb was martyred in 1850, at which time he had not abrogated or changed the laws of Islam that permitted and regulated the practice. Slavery was not finally abolished in Iran until 1929.[note 1][5] For comparison though slavery had been abolished in the British Empire as late as 1833,[note 2] it remained legal in the United States until 1863.[note 3]

Nor was slavery immediately abolished among followers of the Báb and Baháʼu'lláh.

The household in which Baháʼu'lláh was raised also included a number of slaves. He became the owner of these on the death of his father, whereupon he gave each of them the choice of remaining in his service as free servants, or leaving.[6] saying "How, then, can this thrall claim for himself ownership of any other human being? Nay,…."[7]

All of them chose to take up their freedom in full and leave his household, except one called Isfan Ḍíyár, who remained a loyal servant, and later a well known follower, of Baháʼu'lláh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3...th_and_slavery

[shunyadragon]

So slavery was not formally abolished among Bahaʼis until 1873. Like I said you jumped on the bandwagon!

No, Bah'u'llah released his slaves form servitude long before that and established the principle against slavery. The Baha'i Faith did not jump on any bandwagon, because either the Bible nor the Quran ford slavery in any form, and Christian widely bought, sold and owned slave up until the the 19th century.

Source: https://bahaiteachings.org/bahaullah-frees-the-slaves/

Professor Saiedi thinks this Tablet could well have been intended for none other than Isfandiyar, the slave held by Baha’u’llah’s father and then freed by Baha’u’llah. An equally strong likelihood exists – that Baha’u’llah wrote this historically significant tablet at a very early date, in the “pre-Babi era” (i.e. prior to May 22, 1844). If so, this tablet could be one of the earliest surviving writings of Baha’u’llah — and one of the world’s earliest emancipation proclamations.

In a tone remarkable for its humility, Baha’u’llah respectfully addresses Isfandiyar in the tablet, stating that, since all humans are symbolically slaves — “owned” (mamluk) of God — therefore no person can be the owner of another human being. Baha’u’llah further states that he himself cannot be the owner of any one, and this is why Baha’u’llah had set Isfandiyar free. This is the very same reasoning that Baha’u’llah gives in the 1873 passage where he outlaws slavery in His Most Holy Book, the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

Baha’u’llah’s anti-slavery views may be traced all the way back to 1839 (if not before), when Baha’u’llah liberated the household slaves owned by his father, Mirza Buzurg.

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

Yes it was cohesive for the majority, and why is that wrong?

Bondage (e.g. slavery) or social discrimination is not conducive to the cohesion of society as a whole. Enlightenment thinkers argued that liberty was a natural human right for everyone in society.

[Tassman]

The point is Shuny that these Christian abolitionists used Bible principles to make their case.

Just as Christian slave-owners used “bible principles” to make their case for slave ownership, e.g. Ephesians 6:5-7 NIV: 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. The bible "says" whatever people want it to say based upon the prevailing social values of the day. If you are going to claim that anti-slavery is a biblical principle you need to explain why slavery was commonplace in majority Christian countries for most of its history.

[rogue06]

No, Bah'u'llah released his slaves form servitude long before that and established the principle against slavery. The Baha'i Faith did not jump on any bandwagon, because either the Bible nor the Quran ford slavery in any form, and Christian widely bought, sold and owned slave up until the the 19th century.

Source: https://bahaiteachings.org/bahaullah-frees-the-slaves/

Professor Saiedi thinks this Tablet could well have been intended for none other than Isfandiyar, the slave held by Baha’u’llah’s father and then freed by Baha’u’llah. An equally strong likelihood exists – that Baha’u’llah wrote this historically significant tablet at a very early date, in the “pre-Babi era” (i.e. prior to May 22, 1844). If so, this tablet could be one of the earliest surviving writings of Baha’u’llah — and one of the world’s earliest emancipation proclamations.

In a tone remarkable for its humility, Baha’u’llah respectfully addresses Isfandiyar in the tablet, stating that, since all humans are symbolically slaves — “owned” (mamluk) of God — therefore no person can be the owner of another human being. Baha’u’llah further states that he himself cannot be the owner of any one, and this is why Baha’u’llah had set Isfandiyar free. This is the very same reasoning that Baha’u’llah gives in the 1873 passage where he outlaws slavery in His Most Holy Book, the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

Baha’u’llah’s anti-slavery views may be traced all the way back to 1839 (if not before), when Baha’u’llah liberated the household slaves owned by his father, Mirza Buzurg.

© Copyright Original Source

While he may have released his slaves earlier is irrelevant to the fact that it wasn't until 1873 that he banned the slave trade so the Baháʼí were somewhat late to the game. And if you read his statement the only thing explicitly banned was the buying and selling of slaves not the owning of them although he does call it wrong. That means it appears by the 1873 declaration that you could still keep the slaves you had but could not get any more or replace those who died.

[seer]

Bondage (e.g. slavery) or social discrimination is not conducive to the cohesion of society as a whole. Enlightenment thinkers argued that liberty was a natural human right for everyone in society.

But that is not true, China's whole population, save the political elite, are in de facto bondage. And their cohesion is fine. And where do you find liberty as a right in nature? This is just silly.

[seer]

No, Bah'u'llah released his slaves form servitude long before that and established the principle against slavery. The Baha'i Faith did not jump on any bandwagon, because either the Bible nor the Quran ford slavery in any form, and Christian widely bought, sold and owned slave up until the the 19th century.

Source: https://bahaiteachings.org/bahaullah-frees-the-slaves/

Professor Saiedi thinks this Tablet could well have been intended for none other than Isfandiyar, the slave held by Baha’u’llah’s father and then freed by Baha’u’llah. An equally strong likelihood exists – that Baha’u’llah wrote this historically significant tablet at a very early date, in the “pre-Babi era” (i.e. prior to May 22, 1844). If so, this tablet could be one of the earliest surviving writings of Baha’u’llah — and one of the world’s earliest emancipation proclamations.

In a tone remarkable for its humility, Baha’u’llah respectfully addresses Isfandiyar in the tablet, stating that, since all humans are symbolically slaves — “owned” (mamluk) of God — therefore no person can be the owner of another human being. Baha’u’llah further states that he himself cannot be the owner of any one, and this is why Baha’u’llah had set Isfandiyar free. This is the very same reasoning that Baha’u’llah gives in the 1873 passage where he outlaws slavery in His Most Holy Book, the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

Baha’u’llah’s anti-slavery views may be traced all the way back to 1839 (if not before), when Baha’u’llah liberated the household slaves owned by his father, Mirza Buzurg.

© Copyright Original Source

You don't even know if this is correct. So formally it was not ended to 1873. After all the Bab owned a slave Even if it was prior to 1844 there were already Abolitionists in the West at that point. For instance there were US states that abolished slavery in the late 1700s. So Baha’u’llah was just following their good example. In other words he wasn't coming up with anything new.

[shunyadragon]

While he may have released his slaves earlier is irrelevant to the fact that it wasn't until 1873 that he banned the slave trade so the Baháʼí were somewhat late to the game. And if you read his statement the only thing explicitly banned was the buying and selling of slaves not the owning of them although he does call it wrong. That means it appears by the 1873 declaration that you could still keep the slaves you had but could not get any more or replace those who died.

IT remains a fact that your ignoring the elephant in the room. There is absolutely no spiritual teaching in the Bible that forbids slavery, and therefore slavery was common in Christinaity throughout history up until the 18th century.

You are also neglecting the fact that Baha'u'llah release his slaves early and condemned slavery early. By example since he is a Revealer in the Word of God his actions are the Word of God. Guess what we have no evidence that Christ wrote anything down.

[shunyadragon]

You don't even know if this is correct. So formally it was not ended to 1873. After all the Bab owned a slave Even if it was prior to 1844 there were already Abolitionists in the West at that point. For instance there were US states that abolished slavery in the late 1700s. So Baha’u’llah was just following their good example. In other words he wasn't coming up with anything new.

Baha'u'llah's actions as a Manifestation of God are his laws and the fact that Baha'u'llah released his slaves early and condemned slavery early. By example since he is a Revealer in the Word of God his actions are the Word of God. Guess what we have no evidence that Christ wrote anything down.

[seer]

Baha'u'llah's actions as a Manifestation of God are his laws and the fact that Baha'u'llah released his slaves early and condemned slavery early. By example since he is a Revealer in the Word of God his actions are the Word of God. Guess what we have no evidence that Christ wrote anything down.

Except Christ is the single most influential spiritual leader in human history. Now who is more likely to have the hand of God on him - Baha'u'llah or Christ...