God Favors Slavery!

[CJK]

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: You may buy your male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you ... You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever." Leviticus 25:44-46

The slaver holders being the upstanding followers of a sadistic God, and the slaves the sub-human heathens.

How interesting.

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he shall not be punished: for the slave is his money." Exodus 21:20

[Lotan]

So?

[McCulloch]

Paul does not order the release of Onesimus because Christianity does not forbid slavery.

No. Paul does not order the release of Onesimus because as a fellow Christian, and therefore Philemon's equal, he has no authority to do so.

Therefore, though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do what is proper, yet for love's sake I rather appeal to you- ...

Contrary to Lotan's view, Paul states that he really does have the authority to order Philemon what to do. Paul the apostle, spokesperson for God Almighty, could and would have ordered Philemon to release his slaves if God himself was against slavery and had revealed that truth to Paul. However, God, apparently is not against slavery and all Paul can do is ask a personal favour. Similarly, Paul makes the distinction between his own preferences and the commandment of the Lord elsewhere.

[Lotan]

Contrary to Lotan's view...

It's not so simple as that. First of all, if Paul were to order Philemon to do anything it would be in Christ's name as indicated in the quote you provided...

...though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you...

...but he doesn't order him. Not because he can't but because he won't.
Second, Paul clearly wants Philemon to free Onesimus and not only for personal reasons...

to do what is proper

So, according to Paul, releasing Onesimus is what is "proper".

Here's why...

For perhaps he was therefore separated from you for a while, that you would have him forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much rather to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. Philemon 1:15,16

IOW, equals. Paul's message is consistent. Philemon should free Onesimus voluntarily because it's God's will, not Paul's. Paul is just the messenger.

Similarly, Paul makes the distinction between his own preferences and the commandment of the Lord elsewhere.

If you think it's relevant don't be shy...

[McCulloch]

First of all, if Paul were to order Philemon to do anything it would be in Christ's name as indicated in the quote you provided...
...though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you...
...but he doesn't order him. Not because he can't but because he won't.
Second, Paul clearly wants Philemon to free Onesimus and not only for personal reasons...
to do what is proper
So, according to Paul, releasing Onesimus is what is "proper".
Here's why...
For perhaps he was therefore separated from you for a while, that you would have him forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much rather to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. Philemon 1:15,16
IOW, equals. Paul's message is consistent. Philemon should free Onesimus voluntarily because it's God's will, not Paul's. Paul is just the messenger.

Because both master and slave were in the Lord. At the most, this shows that Christians should not own Christian slaves. However, where else is God's will voluntary to Christians? Either it is God's will and therefore mandatory for Christians or it is voluntary and not necessarily God's commandment.

Similarly, Paul makes the distinction between his own preferences and the commandment of the Lord elsewhere.

If you think it's relevant don't be shy...

I only included that to show that there is a precedent for Paul to include his own preferences which are not God's commandments in his epistles. No one can conclude that everything he put it in a letter that subsequently was made a part of Holy Writ is necessarily God's commandment. I think that this is one such example. 1Cor 7:6 and 2Cor 8:8 are other examples.
If Christianity condemns slavery, then what does Paul mean in his letter to the Ephesians, "And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him"? If God was against slavery, then why would he have waited until the first century to make it known? Since slavery was well established in the ancient world, and he previously tolerated slavery, why would his new-found condemnation of it not be more clearly stated?

[Lotan]

At the most, this shows that Christians should not own Christian slaves.

What's your point? Was Paul ministering to Buddhists?

However, where else is God's will voluntary to Christians?

Um, everywhere?

Either it is God's will and therefore mandatory for Christians or it is voluntary and not necessarily God's commandment.

Yes, I know what you mean, but adherence to God's will ain't worth squat if it is coerced. It has to be voluntary.

only included that to show that there is a precedent for Paul to include his own preferences which are not God's commandments in his epistles.

Paul, like everyone else had opinions. He's just trying to be helpful.

If Christianity condemns slavery, then what does Paul mean in his letter to the Ephesians...

There is a strong consensus that Ephesians is one of the forgeries mentioned earlier.

[McCulloch]

At the most, this shows that Christians should not own Christian slaves.

What's your point? Was Paul ministering to Buddhists?

It says nothing about whether Christians should own non-Christian slaves.

However, where else is God's will voluntary to Christians?

Um, everywhere?

Either it is God's will and therefore mandatory for Christians or it is voluntary and not necessarily God's commandment.

Yes, I know what you mean, but adherence to God's will ain't worth squat if it is coerced. It has to be voluntary.

But if it is voluntary, then it is not a commandment. Aren't Christians slaves to righteousness? Voluntary but mandatory.

If Christianity condemns slavery, then what does Paul mean in his letter to the Ephesians...

There is a strong consensus that Ephesians is one of the forgeries mentioned earlier.

Please list the Christian denominations which have removed these passages form the canon.

[Lotan]

It says nothing about whether Christians should own non-Christian slaves.

No it doesn't. You'll have to use your imagination.

But if it is voluntary, then it is not a commandment. Aren't Christians slaves to righteousness? Voluntary but mandatory.

Now you're confusing yourself!
Jesus (or God) gives the commandments, believers follow them (or not) of their own free will. In Philemon's case it wouldn't have counted as obedience to God if Paul had ordered him to release Onesimus, it would have been obedience to Paul, an equal in Christ.

Please list the Christian denominations which have removed these passages form the canon.

I should have said a "strong consensus" of scholars. Since when has any denomination accepted any argument against the authenticity of any part of the NT? If anything they try to cover up the messy bits!

[McCulloch]

I should have said a "strong consensus" of scholars. Since when has any denomination accepted any argument against the authenticity of any part of the NT? If anything they try to cover up the messy bits!

So here we are, two infidels arguing over a point of Christian doctrine. You have the upper hand in that almost all modern branches of Christianity oppose slavery.
However, your argument depends on rejecting parts of the Bible considered a holy revelation from God Almighty, by most Christians. It also depends on ignoring the ugly truth of the behaviour of the allegedly same God as described in the OT.
The fact is that at least some professing Christians supported slavery in to the mid 1800's. With hindsight, I suppose that modern Christians would condemn those slave-holding Christians as wrong, sinful or mistaken. No, to be fair, at the time the anti-slave movement was also strongly based on Christian values. The slavery issue split churches and pitted Christian against Christian. I guess that discerning the correct teaching from the scriptures was more difficult for them than it is now.

What I would really like to see is a response from a Bible believing Christian who believes that slavery taught against in the Bible. What do you do with the passages in the NT which support slavery? Are you with Lotan and "the consensus of scholars" that parts of the Holy Bible are false and misleading?

[Lotan]

So here we are, two infidels arguing over a point of Christian doctrine.

It's a dirty job but someone has to...
This has been a fun discussion.

...your argument depends on rejecting parts of the Bible considered a holy revelation from God Almighty, by most Christians.

It's no secret (outside of church) that some of Paul's letters weren't actually written by Paul. The fact that the later eponymous authors 'silenced' Paul by contradicting him on this issue actually strengthens the argument that he was anti-slavery.

It also depends on ignoring the ugly truth of the behaviour of the allegedly same God as described in the OT.

It does no such thing, as my original comment was restricted to Pauline theology. Whether that needs to be reconciled with earlier forms of Judaism (or Christianity, for that matter) and to what degree is a separate argument.

[McCulloch]

...your argument depends on rejecting parts of the Bible considered a holy revelation from God Almighty, by most Christians.

It's no secret (outside of church) that some of Paul's letters weren't actually written by Paul. The fact that the later eponymous authors 'silenced' Paul by contradicting him on this issue actually strengthens the argument that he was anti-slavery.

Yes, but it is the view from inside the church which defines Christianity.

It also depends on ignoring the ugly truth of the behaviour of the allegedly same God as described in the OT.

It does no such thing, as my original comment was restricted to Pauline theology. Whether that needs to be reconciled with earlier forms of Judaism (or Christianity, for that matter) and to what degree is a separate argument.

But part of answering the question for debate. The opening post specifically refers to the earlier holy writings. In order to hold your view, a Christian would have to admit that the anti-slavery sections of the NT contradict the practice allowed by their own God in a previous dispensation. Therefore a logically consistent Christian cannot assert that slavery is an absolute evil only a relative one. Either that or denounce El/YHWH as false.