Does God condone slavery TODAY?

[Zzyzx]

.
Does God condone slavery TODAY?

I have encountered nothing in the Bible indicating that God condemns or even discourages the practice of slavery. Even “don't return escaped slaves� or “don't beat them to death: accept the practice of slavery.

In today's world slavery exists. Most enlightened / educated / informed people seem to oppose the practice. However, God does not seem to have anything to say on the matter.

Has God changed his mind? If so, how has that been made known?

[JLB32168]

If I as a parent were abusing drugs like in your scenario, which caused harm to those that I love, I would seek help (treatment) that would in fact most likely cause me to have to leave my home.

Wonderful!

You didn’t address the question but dodged it.

I’m talking about the parent who throws his adult son out of the house. That parent wouldn’t want to be thrown out of his house; therefore, your logic (and that of Zzz apparently) would say that the parent is wrong under any circumstances since he’s doing something that he wouldn’t want done to him.

I’m not sure how pointing out your dodges serves to advance your arguments.

Would you seriously not seek treatment if you were abusing drugs?

What in the world are you talking about?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by JLB32168]

Would you seriously not seek treatment if you were abusing drugs?

What in the world are you talking about?

I think it was "drugs".
He was asking a question about it.


Does that help?

[Clownboat]

If I as a parent were abusing drugs like in your scenario, which caused harm to those that I love, I would seek help (treatment) that would in fact most likely cause me to have to leave my home.

Wonderful!

You didn’t address the question but dodged it.

I’m talking about the parent who throws his adult son out of the house. That parent wouldn’t want to be thrown out of his house; therefore, your logic (and that of Zzz apparently) would say that the parent is wrong under any circumstances since he’s doing something that he wouldn’t want done to him.

I’m not sure how pointing out your dodges serves to advance your arguments.

Would you seriously not seek treatment if you were abusing drugs?

What in the world are you talking about?

Readers, let's examine JLB's exact words shall we? I would like to address his claim that I am dodging.

Some parents have adult children who have abused alcohol and drugs, cleaned up for a time, fell of the wagon and then the parents ordered them out of the home as A)a form of tough “love and/or B)as protection for other smaller children in the home. Those parents wouldn’t want to be thrown out of their home.

Clearly JLB mentions an adult that abuses alcohol. This adult happens to live with their parents in JLB's hypothetical scenario (ask yourself why he likes hypotheticals so much) and thinks he is clever by pointing out that the parents wouldn't want to get thrown out, so they should not throw out their drug abusing children.

What JLB fails to grasp is that I would do to my children exactly what I would do for myself in his scenario. If I abused drugs and caused harm to others in my home, I would remove myself from my home and seek treatment. Exactly what I would do to one of my own children if they were living in my home, abusing drugs and harming others.

The only dodge I see is how JLB didn't have to justify his god condoning slavery for a post.

[JLB32168]

Clearly JLB mentions an adult that abuses alcohol. This adult happens to live with their parents in JLB's hypothetical scenario (ask yourself why he likes hypotheticals so much) and thinks he is clever by pointing out that the parents wouldn't want to get thrown out, so they should not throw out their drug abusing children.

I’m not sure why this supposed to be clever but you do so I’ll accept it.

If I abused drugs and caused harm to others in my home, I would remove myself from my home and seek treatment.

Wonderful.

If your child doesn’t think s/he has a problem what are you going to do?
Presumably you’d throw him/her out regardless. You wouldn’t want someone to throw you out on your ear; therefore, you are not following the Golden Rule.
You’re doing to someone what you wouldn’t want done to you; you’re denying him/her shelter – or that’s your logic.

You’re the only one who’s dodging here. Bringing this all back to slavery – why is “You wouldn’t want to be enslaved by someone� have to do with the morality of slavery?

[catnip]

That said, if mankind insisted on doing something God didn't approve of and ignored what God said--then slavery was an evil that had to be endured until we finally listened.

That would be a stronger case if there was a commandment somewhere where God said release slaves rather than make people into them.

Even Zzyzx used the term "condone" in the title of his thread. It shows that even he can see that what is reflected in scripture is not shown to be morally acceptable to God, that God put limits on it and in various ways discouraged it, even encouraging the release of slaves. Perhaps we must look at the reasons for slavery in order to see some reason why it was tolerated in a limited form. We who live since slavery has been abolished are very self-righteous about the evils of slavery (and there is certainly no reason for it anywhere in this world today).

In Africa, when attempting to end the slave trade (remember that Africans themselves kept slaves), early protestant missionaries found it necessary to not challenge the issue of slaves or slave owners would not be converted. Now we like to implicate the missionaries as allowing it for the sake of profit, but generations of protestant missionaries were frustrated in the effort to work against it. And so, as had happened throughout history since the beginning of Christianity in the very Roman tradition of slave-holding, it became necessary to preach salvation of the soul and leave the institution of slavery alone.

We've traveled a long hard road to end slavery--but it was never more than tolerated and not shown to be a good thing. The question is: Had we preached against slavery could we have won over the lost souls and ended it? Or would our message have been repudiated and ignored? It took generations and nearly two-millennia to bring it about. Religion may have its limitations, but it was through religion that the conscience could be appealed to and it was through religion that the anti-slavery movement slowly gained ground.

One document that I consulted is a DOCX found on the Internet so I can't copy the link entitled "How we learned that slavery was wrong" --Gresham College. This is one of those subjects that a summary investigation fails to relate well and I have occasionally studied it through the years.

[1213]

[Replying to post 48 by Blastcat]

Oh, you don't know about the marriage loophole?
Try Exodus 21:4

According to the Ex. 21:3 slave had right to take his wife with him. but if the master had given the wife, it was different case. I wouldn’t keep slaves, or not let them have their wife and kids, but I have nothing why I could deny that from others. But because of love your neighbor and Jeremiah 34:8-17, I think people should not own slaves and that means that also nobody should have to pay taxes, which in my opinion are one form of slavery.

I am not so much as one sided pessimistic as you seem to portray yourself:

I think I am realist, not pessimist.

I imagine that lots of families love one another, and that, all over the world.

Maybe people love their families in some cases. That is possible, but the standard for disciples of Jesus is this:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same? If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don't even the tax collectors do the same? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Mat. 5:44-45

1. Why would it be moral for Jews to have the right to buy and sell people as property?

I think buying could have been moral for example because then the bought person could have had better life than with the nation that is willing to sell own people.

2. Why would you consider cutting off the foreskin of a man against his will "good for the person"?

If for example it prevents him to be mistreated, then I think it can be good for the person. In ancient time, it may have been good, because of that. But I don’t really know accurately what were the reasons.

3. Would you consider cutting off the foreskin of a man against his will "good for the person" TODAY?

At the moment, I don’t know why it would be good, but either I don’t know why it would be bad.

4. Why would slavery be OK back then and NOT OK today?

I don’t support slavery in any time, therefore I am also against tax paying, which is in my opinion form of slavery. But it could have been ok, if it makes the slaves life better as it may have done in some cases. After all, the master of slave must take care of the slave.

6. Do you consider it moral to force a woman into servitude, and then force her into marriage?

If the other option makes her life worse, then I think it can be moral. But even if so, I think she should be treated well.

8. And finally, I would greatly appreciate it if you felt that I was taking your arguments seriously. Because I am. I am trying very HARD, as a matter of fact, to take all of your arguments seriously. is there any way that I can help you to feel that I am considering each and every one of your arguments?

Ok, my point was actually that I don’t think about do you consider it, because it is not something that I need to think or even know. Maybe you do so, and nice if you do so, thank you.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 54 by JLB32168]

why is “You wouldn’t want to be enslaved by someone� have to do with the morality of slavery?

Luke 6:31New International Version (NIV)

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

😊

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

There is nothing in the Bible that condemns the "institution" of slavery as such. Philemon is the one case where a Christian slave-owner is encouraged to release a Christian slave.

Of course, if Paul thought slavery an innocuous element of society (as between employer and employee) this letter would never have been written: why didn't he say "Onesimus, stop being a baby and get back to Philemon!"?

Likewise, Paul says in Galatians

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:28 NAS)

He seems to be obliterating what was perceived in Gentile thought an (almost) ontological distinction between slave and freeman. But, if he had no qualms with slavery---if slavery were on the same level as being left-handed or right-handed, why would he attempt to obliterate a distinction.

The real critique is, why didn't Paul and the earliest Christians set all their energy on abolishing slavery--forget spreading the gospel; forget telling Gentiles to stop worshiping idols, to cease from temple prostitution. Why did they not spend 100% of their energy on being a 1st c. abolition movement?

[Zzyzx]

.

The real critique is, why didn't Paul and the earliest Christians set all their energy on abolishing slavery--forget spreading the gospel; forget telling Gentiles to stop worshiping idols, to cease from temple prostitution. Why did they not spend 100% of their energy on being a 1st c. abolition movement?

I would say 'Why didn't Bible writers insert a few lines condemning slavery – like they did about not lying (or false witness), stealing, coveting.' It would seem as though slavery is more abhorrent than any of those – but instead of speaking against it, 'don't beat them so badly they die within a couple days'.

A commandment against slavery would not have required 100% of anyone's energy.

[bluethread]

The real critique is, why didn't Paul and the earliest Christians set all their energy on abolishing slavery--forget spreading the gospel; forget telling Gentiles to stop worshiping idols, to cease from temple prostitution. Why did they not spend 100% of their energy on being a 1st c. abolition movement?

Because they were not called to preach liberation theology. They were called to follow the commandment to be a light to the gentile, by living a Torah submissive life, in accordance with Yeshua's teachings.