None of which detracts from the point I made though.
The point that it does not absolutely and unequivocally condone slavery means you cannot use it to prove that slavery is immoral according to scripture.
Christians have used scripture to show that slavery is unethical, as I explained in previous threads, mainly derived from the same Pauline Epistiles that some tried to use to support it.
The argument from Jason was that atheists (or rather a secular society) cannot put forward an argument against slavery. The inference being that theists can, which clearly they can't (well Christians anyway).
I don't think he mentioned a secular society, only an atheist viewpoint based on relative morality....secularism is simply the separation of church and state, nothing more.
As for it's abolition, it was actually started by the Spanish in the 16th Century. The Quakers you refer to took another 200 years before they suddenly decided slavery was un-Christian.
Pope Paul III forbade slavery in all new discovered countries/lands prior to Spain enacting their ban, which was on,y a small part of a law designed to prevent the exploitation of colonial indigenous populations, which they did because they were one of many Catholic Countries to do so and they were under pressure to do so because of rebellion, although it didnt last long due to other political pressures from the landowners themselves.
But before this, in 1435 Pope Eugene IV banned the practice of Slavery under threat of excommunication in his cyclical
Sidcut Dudum. and the abolition of the Slave trade in the British Empire was largely due to the formation and work of the society for the abolition of the slave trade.
France under Catholicism banned the slave trade in its foreign possessions (due to Catholic influence, slavery in Europe itself was frowned upon, but had little power if it was a pre existing practice outside of Christendom) but the secular Napoleon restored it, it was not until Britain either paid, threatened or negotiated treaties with Spain, France, Portugal, and the Netherlands did those countries abolish slavery.
And in the UK you can hardly say the Church of England was innocent. They owned slaves as part of their 'Anglican Church's Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts' programme.
So when the establishment is involved in slavery, you can hardly turn around and absolve it by saying "yeah well a couple of followers did something about it and they were Christians".
Except as demonstrated it was not simply a couple of Christian followers, and no-one is absolving g anyone either, it was the established Church as well which sought the abolition of slavery for quite some time prior to the eventual abolition of the transatlantic slave trade which we generally refer to as the abolition of slavery. It is also true that religion, particularly early Anglican missions propogated slavery in the Americas as part of the process to make them integrate and accept European rule, although this soon was opposed by the Catholic Church and by some Anglican denominations as unchristian and in opposition to Christ's teachings.
Sub Saharan Africa was different as Slavery was already in place and an important aspect of society when the Europeans arrived, and Christians (Catholicism particularly) didn't recognise the heathen Africans and treated them as cursed, both because of what they considered sinful practices (which strangely included enslavement of their own people's) and their relationship to Ham in Genesis.
And this is the problem with saying that the Bible and Christianity advocate slavery, it neither advocates or condemns, and within Christendom itself, slavery has been against Church doctrine for centuries before the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. This is why there were no slaves in Britain or in many mainland European Countries, but was tolerated in there respective colonial possessions.
But this is going off topic.
