(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Crossposting to challenging_god.

Is it fair to judge a religion on the basis of actions done by its followers? By this I mean of course weighing the good deeds as well as the bad ones. Or should this judgment be made simply on the basis of the teachings themselves?

Underlying this question is another one: to what extent is a religion defined by the people that make it up?

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Do you think there should be a reasonable limit?

For example, throughout much of history many Christians were slaveowners. Is this in itself a reflection on Christianity -- or does it only reflect on Christianity when slaveowners appeal to Christian teaching to justify the practice of slavery?

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"For example, throughout much of history many Christians were slaveowners. Is this in itself a reflection on Christianity -- or does it only reflect on Christianity when slaveowners appeal to Christian teaching to justify the practice of slavery?"

Slavery and the praise of virtuous slaves and servants, is written deeply into the Christian religion. I find it no surprise that it was so easy to use the Bible to justify slavery, since the Bible in fact, does justify slavery - or rather, it does not even question whether or not slavery is a good thing, it accepts slavery as part of the natural order of things. The concepts that there must be a dominant person and a submissive person in every human relationship, i.e., all relationships are hierarchal by nature, is an unexamined assumption throughout much of the Bible. Only in the New Testament do we see any hint of a "kinder gentler" view, and that little neough, verses meant to emphasize all Christians are equal before Christ in Ephesians, I believe - yet this is not meant to supercede the slave/master dichotomy here on earth, only in heaven.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The only text in the Bible that could conceivably be used to demonstrate that slavery is unchristian is Paul's letter to Philemon, which he sent back to Philemon along with the escaped slave Onesimus. In that letter he pleaded with Philemon to treat Onesimus with fairness "as a brother in Christ" or to perhaps even consider freeing him.

It could be that Paul simply didn't have the guts to tell people to stop owning slaves. It's far more likely that he didn't see anything wrong with slavery per se, just the mistreatment of slaves.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"It's far more likely that he didn't see anything wrong with slavery per se, just the mistreatment of slaves."

Paul was a Roman, and from the rest of his writings, it is apparent he had no desire to change the Roman culture, which included slavery and oppression of women. So I think you are correct in your guess that he saw nothing wrong with the ownership of slaves.