A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1050 times

A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #1

Post by POI »

Taken from "1213" --> http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Owning_slaves.html

Notably, the quote below:

Owning slaves?

According to the Old Testament, peoples at least had right to own slaves. Many wonder, is that same right also valid for today’s disciples of Jesus.

1)
Jesus didn’t directly deny owning slaves. So maybe it can be taught that it is valid right today also. However Jesus taught to do same to others that you want others to do to you. Therefore, if you don’t want yourself to be slave, don’t keep others in that position.

2) Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Mat. 7:12


3) It is also good to notice that disciples of Jesus shouldn’t consider themselves superior to others. If we are all brothers and sisters, how could we keep other as a slave? Rather we should be servants to each other.


*************************

My response, thus far:

1) You are right, Jesus never tells humans that slavery is wrong. Instead, He looks to endorse the following two Bible passages A) and B):

A) Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Col. 3:22-24)

B) All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves. (1 Tim. 6:1-2)

A) This massage tells the slave to remain subservient, work as hard as one can; even when the master is away. This way, God will be proud of you, via the slave.

B) Respect your slave master. If the master happens to be a Christian, respect them even more.

As you can see, Jesus appears not to be against slavery at all. In fact, He condones such practices.

2) If this were the case for all humans, (the free and the enslaved), then Jesus would not have endorsed instructions for slavery.

3) Please remember the 'golden rule' was already expressed in the OT (i.e.) "you shall love your neighbor as yourself"(Lev. 19:18). Either never speak about the topic of slavery at all, or, tell the Bible readers that slavery is 'wrong'. Instead, the OT already instructs on how you may obtain slaves, how you may beat your slaves, and informs the reader that the slave master can own the slave for life, and also treat them as their property for life. The NT then merely reinforces such OT instruction.

Question(s) for debate:

Why didn't Jesus just abolish slavery practices, or never mention slavery at all? Seems rather confusing, to have left what He left in the NT Bible....?

Answer (post #401)

I'd say that the matter is clear. The OT does refer to chattel slavery - for foreigners. The Bible gives rules (attempting to be fair, no denial) for Jews enslaving others. It does not look like God, knowing that slavery is going to be a no- no in the age when his religion is user scrutiny, thought that he should make it clear that it was wrong. It looks like God thought it was ok, within limits. Paul gave it a thumbs -up and Jesus at least by not commenting, seems to be unaware that it is going to be one of the worst human crimes in modern times.

Thus, it is one more reason to believe the Bible, cover to cover...as the word of men of the time. And that's all it is. It is not even a valid guide to life- advice, morals or social conduct. It is, like any other book, judged by human moral standards, and I can prove it. If Christians did not judge the Bible by human moral codes, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Last edited by POI on Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #101

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Byzantium is even worse, or perhaps Christianity has not whitewashed Byzantium so much as the Christian western Rome.

Slavery in the Byzantine Empire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...
Slavery was common in the early Roman Empire and Classical Greece. It was legal in the Byzantine Empire but it was transformed significantly from the 4th century onward as slavery came to play a diminished role in the economy. Laws gradually diminished the power of slaveholders and improved the rights of slaves by restricting a master’s right to abuse, prostitute, expose, and murder slaves.[1] Slavery became rare after the first half of 7th century.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery.[3] Under the influence of Christianity, views of slavery shifted: by the 10th century slaves were viewed as potential citizens (the slave as a subject), rather than property or chattel (the slave as an object).[4] Slavery was also seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although it remained legal.[5]


This is only the start. ;)

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #102

Post by tam »

Peace to you,

Just want to respond a little to some of the things you have said, if I may? Thank you.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 1:00 pm While i ought to leave the two of you to this debate, I feel obliged to point out that Paul endorsed slavery and he was supposed to have got his teachings from Jesus via the disciples.


A - Paul could make mistakes (as can all men).
B - From post 80 (re: Paul and slavery):

Paul was probably speaking from love, trying to keep people safe - not just from those who owned them, but also from the authorities and law of the land. Paul did think it best if people had their freedom, and he protected a (runaway?) slave for a time, and when he had to send that slave back, he made it pretty hard for that owner to justify keeping the man as a slave.

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.




(and though this is just a side-note, Paul learned from Christ. Paul did not learn from Christ via the disciples; Paul learned from Christ Himself. He makes that clear at Galatians 1:11 - 20).
Now I know that Christians claim that slavery was abolished. I'll have to check that as I'm sure that there were slaves.
Yes, there were slaves. Slavery was a common and legal practice of the time and place. It can take time to work in people's hearts, to get them to understand what is right and from love, especially when it means going against a common and legal practice. But just because something is legal or permitted does not mean that it should be done, or even that it is what God wants us to do. The law also said 'eye for eye/life for life', but Christ did not demand eye for eye against those who persecuted Him and put Him to death. He asked forgiveness for them, and taught us (who follow Him, love Him, look to Him, belong to Him) to do the same.
In any case when Christians were slave trading from the 16th to 19th c, I never heard the Bible being produced other than to justify slavery.


This is a very generous use of the word "Christian".

Regardless, a person could use the bible to justify stoning people for adultery (if the law of the land permitted it), but that doesn't mean they're listening to Christ, following Christ.

A Christian follows Christ.

And we can see from Paul's letter to Philemon, that he expected the man to do what is right: which was to free Onesimus.

Note his words: "though I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do"

The people who led the american slave trade had all of this information in front of them as well, and ignored it (as some are doing here as well). They USED the bible to justify what they WANTED. Rather than doing what was good, from love, from Christ.

And even if two things are permissible, what you choose reveals what is in you, in your heart.

It has always been true that God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Yet people so often choose sacrifice, instead of mercy. Why?
This whole idea of 'we are all slaves to Jesusgod' simply makes it unimportant whether people are slaves or not.
Perhaps (depending on who you mean it is unimportant TO). The point is that WE - who are Christian - are not to ENSLAVE others. If we are to be slaves/servants of God, Christ and one another (according to Christ's own instructions), who does that leave for us to enslave? And is enslaving another person from love? Is refusing to set someone free who wishes to be free, from love, from mercy?
At least you appear to concede that God in the OT was fine with slavery, though the unchanging God was all changed when Jesus came along.


God has ALWAYS been as Christ reveals Him to be. But God did make allowances for Israel and their hard-heartedness (and perhaps also for conditions of the time). But that does not mean it was true from the beginning. We have a direct example from Christ, where He tells us what was true from the beginning, rather than the allowance that had been made in the law because the people were not willing/able to hear and do better (hard-hearted).
But not so far as I can see, on slavery. Not to point to that being loving to everyone doesn't mean that you can't be loving to slaves while keeping them as slaves.


God and Christ do not enslave us, do not make anyone serve them who does not want to serve them.
If I was a slave - driving Christian, I'd only have to point to how heavy Jesus got with those who needed a correction if not a sharp lesson,'no no, Sir, lovin' 'em don't mean that you don't get ter whup em'.
Like what? Christ enslaved no one, beat no one, and He certainly had no slaves to whip.


Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #103

Post by TRANSPONDER »

tam wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 1:52 pm Peace to you,

Just want to respond a little to some of the things you have said, if I may? Thank you.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 1:00 pm While i ought to leave the two of you to this debate, I feel obliged to point out that Paul endorsed slavery and he was supposed to have got his teachings from Jesus via the disciples.


A - Paul could make mistakes (as can all men).
B - From post 80 (re: Paul and slavery):

Paul was probably speaking from love, trying to keep people safe - not just from those who owned them, but also from the authorities and law of the land. Paul did think it best if people had their freedom, and he protected a (runaway?) slave for a time, and when he had to send that slave back, he made it pretty hard for that owner to justify keeping the man as a slave.

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.




(and though this is just a side-note, Paul learned from Christ. Paul did not learn from Christ via the disciples; Paul learned from Christ Himself. He makes that clear at Galatians 1:11 - 20).
Now I know that Christians claim that slavery was abolished. I'll have to check that as I'm sure that there were slaves.
Yes, there were slaves. Slavery was a common and legal practice of the time and place. It can take time to work in people's hearts, to get them to understand what is right and from love, especially when it means going against a common and legal practice. But just because something is legal or permitted does not mean that it should be done, or even that it is what God wants us to do. The law also said 'eye for eye/life for life', but Christ did not demand eye for eye against those who persecuted Him and put Him to death. He asked forgiveness for them, and taught us (who follow Him, love Him, look to Him, belong to Him) to do the same.
In any case when Christians were slave trading from the 16th to 19th c, I never heard the Bible being produced other than to justify slavery.


This is a very generous use of the word "Christian".

Regardless, a person could use the bible to justify stoning people for adultery (if the law of the land permitted it), but that doesn't mean they're listening to Christ, following Christ.

A Christian follows Christ.

And we can see from Paul's letter to Philemon, that he expected the man to do what is right: which was to free Onesimus.

Note his words: "though I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do"

The people who led the american slave trade had all of this information in front of them as well, and ignored it (as some are doing here as well). They USED the bible to justify what they WANTED. Rather than doing what was good, from love, from Christ.

And even if two things are permissible, what you choose reveals what is in you, in your heart.

It has always been true that God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Yet people so often choose sacrifice, instead of mercy. Why?
This whole idea of 'we are all slaves to Jesusgod' simply makes it unimportant whether people are slaves or not.
Perhaps (depending on who you mean it is unimportant TO). The point is that WE - who are Christian - are not to ENSLAVE others. If we are to be slaves/servants of God, Christ and one another (according to Christ's own instructions), who does that leave for us to enslave? And is enslaving another person from love? Is refusing to set someone free who wishes to be free, from love, from mercy?
At least you appear to concede that God in the OT was fine with slavery, though the unchanging God was all changed when Jesus came along.


God has ALWAYS been as Christ reveals Him to be. But God did make allowances for Israel and their hard-heartedness (and perhaps also for conditions of the time). But that does not mean it was true from the beginning. We have a direct example from Christ, where He tells us what was true from the beginning, rather than the allowance that had been made in the law because the people were not willing/able to hear and do better (hard-hearted).
But not so far as I can see, on slavery. Not to point to that being loving to everyone doesn't mean that you can't be loving to slaves while keeping them as slaves.


God and Christ do not enslave us, do not make anyone serve them who does not want to serve them.
If I was a slave - driving Christian, I'd only have to point to how heavy Jesus got with those who needed a correction if not a sharp lesson,'no no, Sir, lovin' 'em don't mean that you don't get ter whup em'.
Like what? Christ enslaved no one, beat no one, and He certainly had no slaves to whip.


Peace again to you.
Of course you may respond and welcome.

Paul was of course a fallible man and I'd be the first to say that he made many mistakes. But the point is that he got (supposedly) all he knew about Jesus from the apostles and nowhere does he say other than a slave ought to serve their masters. No suggestion that Jesus had said that the old laws about slavery had been superseded. The rule (as I understand it) is if Jesus doesn't overrule it, it stands.

Paul saying that this slave should be released or another (as i recall) buy his freedom, only recognises that people don't like to be slaves; so not to say that Christians should not own slaves is 'without excuse' as he puts it. It is ingenuous to suggest that because we are slaves to God (or so some claim) nobody can be a slave. Of course they can. They were. All the time they were being taught Christianity, too. I can't imagine them doing that if there was any indication at all in the teachings that it was wrong.

Playing nice, as Jesus suggests, is no better than Leviticus which is just trying to be fair (according to their mores) in dealing with slaves. That does not mean in the NT that being nice automatically means that Christianity somehow abolished slavery, or taught that it should be abolished.

And my point about Jesus tough talking and causing a ruckus is not that Jesus owned slaves (come on ;) that's a red herring) but that playing nice by your slaves does not rule out some tough love where it seems to be needed. never mind freeing them.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #104

Post by tam »

Peace to you!

I am not going to carry the whole thing down (since it is a lot), but just respond to your comments and refer back to the link if need be for my previous comments.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #103]
Of course you may respond and welcome.
:approve:
Paul was of course a fallible man and I'd be the first to say that he made many mistakes. But the point is that he got (supposedly) all he knew about Jesus from the apostles and nowhere does he say other than a slave ought to serve their masters. No suggestion that Jesus had said that the old laws about slavery had been superseded. The rule (as I understand it) is if Jesus doesn't overrule it, it stands.
From whom/where did you learn that rule? How do you know that rule is correct?

Even going by this unknown/random rule, Christ overrules enslavement by His words and His example and even by His command that we are to make ourselves least, that we are to be servants of one another.
Paul saying that this slave should be released or another (as i recall) buy his freedom, only recognises that people don't like to be slaves; so not to say that Christians should not own slaves is 'without excuse' as he puts it.
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here in the bold. Are you saying Paul claims Christians should own slaves, or those that do are without excuse (because they should not own slaves)?

That being said, if people (which would include oneself) don't like being slaves, then you should not make them slaves. That would violate the golden rule. By the same standard, if a person is/was a slave and wants their freedom, then you should set them free.
It is ingenuous to suggest that because we are slaves to God (or so some claim) nobody can be a slave. Of course they can. They were.
Have I argued otherwise?
All the time they were being taught Christianity, too. I can't imagine them doing that if there was any indication at all in the teachings that it was wrong.
But there IS indication in the teachings that it was wrong.

Regardless, can you truly not imagine them doing that if there was any indication at all in the teachings that it was wrong? What about judging, stoning, executions, persecuting others, inquisitions, calling for others to be cursed, calling for enemies to be killed? Christ directly commanded against these things (in word and in deed). Yet all these things have gone on over the last two thousand years, by those claiming to be Christian (please see Matt 7:21-23), and with EVERY indication from Christ (His word, His example) that these things are wrong.

Playing nice, as Jesus suggests, is no better than Leviticus which is just trying to be fair (according to their mores) in dealing with slaves. That does not mean in the NT that being nice automatically means that Christianity somehow abolished slavery, or taught that it should be abolished.
Christianity teaches all sorts of things, some of which is what Christ taught (how else to mislead people seeking truth), but much of which is not what He taught, even going AGAINST His word and example.

Perhaps you might consider doing the exercise that I suggested of POI in the last couple posts?
And my point about Jesus tough talking and causing a ruckus is not that Jesus owned slaves (come on ;) that's a red herring) but that playing nice by your slaves does not rule out some tough love where it seems to be needed. never mind freeing them.
I mentioned something much more than just 'playing nice' (acting from love, from mercy, following Christ and the example He set for us). The fact that Christ did not enslave anyone is an important part of someone mimicking Him. In any case, I asked you for specifics on what would justify someone beating another person (slave or otherwise), as per Christ (His word and example).



Peace again to you,
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #105

Post by Miles »

1213 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 10:31 am
Miles wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 2:40 pm
1213 wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 12:30 pm
Miles wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 2:18 pm Not at all because everyone has the choice not to participate in taxed activities. ...
In theory yes, but in practice it would mean that one would be banished from where he lives to some remote location without anything.[
Who, besides yourself, claims such a thing. IOW, what's your source of information that this happens to anyone who chooses "not to participate in taxed activities"?
...
If one is in society, he cannot avoid taxes, because they are in almost all aspects of life. For example, if I work, I have to pay, if I buy something, I have to pay taxes, if I live in a house, I have to pay taxes. Only way to avoid it is to move to some remote place and live without anything, which is probably not possible really.
So, one would NOT "be banished from where he lives to some remote location without anything," as you claimed?


.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1050 times

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #106

Post by POI »

tam wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:41 pm And you are ignoring anything that speaks against it.
The Bible does not speak against "slavery" in the OT or the NT. And by 'slavery', I'm referring to the specific kind; as laid forth in the Bible in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25.
tam wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:41 pm
tam wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 7:11 pm A - Christ did not enslave anyone. Anyone who followed and served Him did so willingly, from love (then and now). Just as He also served us, just as He came TO serve (His words: Matt 20:26-28). That is the example that He set for us to follow, therefore, these are examples that speaks against enslaving others. You cannot enslave someone and be their servant at the same time.

B - Christ came to set us free. He did not come to set us free so that we could then take away others' freedom. That's just dumb.

C - If you do not wish to be enslaved, you cannot enslave others. Simple. Golden rule.
A - As I've told others, the Bible instructs how (human) masters may have (human) slaves.
Exactly how does that override my points "A, B, or C" when Christ is the One to whom we (Christians) are supposed to be listening to, following?

You seem to be under the same mistaken impression as are many who profess to be Christian: that we (who are Christian) are supposed to be following and listening to the Bible.

A Christian listens to and follows Christ. A Christian is a disciple/student of Christ.

But many who profess to be Christian listen to and follow the bible (or at least an interpretation of it); making them disciples/students of the Bible. They even call themselves that: Bible students.
The Bible, is where "Christ" was recorded to speak. He wrote no independent autobiography. The Bible is it. If "Christ" had a problem with anything which is contained within it's pages, which was later canonized, Jesus cared not to later have it 'rectified'.

So, as I stated prior... The Bible instructs how human masters can keep human slaves. And now, we read as you "rationalize" it...
tam wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:41 pm
B - And yet, He says nothing about abolishing slavery practices which was well established in the OT, and then reinforced in the NT.
Please do the exercise I suggested above, and see where you have room according to Christ's words and example to go out and enslave anyone. As for anything Paul wrote, that has already been addressed.
I already addressed what you had said in the OP. Meaning, Lev. 19:18 was already in place when slavery was still issued as God's guide. I touched on this with 'JW'. If you read through Ex. 21 and Lev. 25, it looks as though there exists differing laws between the (free vs enslaved). And by enslaved, I again stress what I mentioned to "1213"; about God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slave. Meaning, the deemed "Bible slave" is at the very bottom of the totem pole.
tam wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:41 pm
C - False. Please read Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25.
Are you suggesting Israel always got it right? Or that a temporary allowance might not have been made for them during that time?
I'm saying the golden rule was already in place when slavery was introduced. But if you read through Ex 21 and Lev. 25, as stated above, it looks as though differing laws exits between the 'free' vs the 'enslaved'. "JW" initially attempted to rebuttal this observation, but has since abandoned ship, thus far...

****************************

(The format got jacked again)

(YOU) Keep Isaiah 58 in mind as an example of what God truly wants. And if still in doubt of what God truly wants, then look to Christ. He is the truth and the image of His Father. God is as Christ shows Him to be.

(ME) So you are saying to ignore Ex. 21 and Lev. 25? Those two Chapters do not express what God truly wants? What else may I ignore? Oh, and BTW, Isaiah 58 does not look to speak about the special rules for the deemed lifetime property of their human masters.

(YOU) But what you believe about me has no bearing on the content of what I said. It's just a way for you to be able to dismiss (and/or try and get others to dismiss) what I shared.[/quote]

(ME) Oh, but it likely does. I'm not dismissing things because you are a believer. I'm dismissing the specific argument you are laying forth here. And I'm merely also pointing out that you are presenting such an argument because the one I'm presenting would not paint your believed upon God as a character you could get behind... Hence, the apologetics and the rationalization persists.

(YOU) So then you are just projecting. [/quote]

(ME) No. Just observing, as we go...
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #107

Post by theophile »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 8:20 am I can only reiterate that the claim that we are all 'servants' to Jesusgod in no way makes any difference to human ethics, which are supposedly written on our hearts by God. Either the state of slavery is wrong in which case being 'slaves' to God makes no odds, or slavery to God means that slavery (chattel slavery as apparently endorsed and approved in the Bible) is ok. In which case I'd say 'so much for Christian morals'.
But what does being 'slaves to God' mean? Does it mean whips? Does it mean we are not freely there?

No. It means that we commit. That we answer the call. That we step up, like Jesus did, and choose to take on the burden.

Whether you give your life to money, family, Nintendo or God is up to you. Everything we do is ultimately slavery to something, and slavery to God has nothing coerced or determined about it.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #108

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
POI wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 4:20 pm
tam wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:41 pm
tam wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 7:11 pm A - Christ did not enslave anyone. Anyone who followed and served Him did so willingly, from love (then and now). Just as He also served us, just as He came TO serve (His words: Matt 20:26-28). That is the example that He set for us to follow, therefore, these are examples that speaks against enslaving others. You cannot enslave someone and be their servant at the same time.

B - Christ came to set us free. He did not come to set us free so that we could then take away others' freedom. That's just dumb.

C - If you do not wish to be enslaved, you cannot enslave others. Simple. Golden rule.
A - As I've told others, the Bible instructs how (human) masters may have (human) slaves.
Exactly how does that override my points "A, B, or C" when Christ is the One to whom we (Christians) are supposed to be listening to, following?

You seem to be under the same mistaken impression as are many who profess to be Christian: that we (who are Christian) are supposed to be following and listening to the Bible.

A Christian listens to and follows Christ. A Christian is a disciple/student of Christ.

But many who profess to be Christian listen to and follow the bible (or at least an interpretation of it); making them disciples/students of the Bible. They even call themselves that: Bible students.
The Bible, is where "Christ" was recorded to speak. He wrote no independent autobiography. The Bible is it.


The bible is not 'it', but that is another topic. Even if the bible WAS it:

A - the bible records God as saying "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."... therefore the words of Christ should come first in that entire book.

B - the bible also records Christ as being the Truth (not the bible, but Christ)... therefore, again, listen to Christ (if indeed you want to know what is true).

C - the bible also records that the law has been mishandled (by the lying pen of the scribes, Jeremiah 8:8)... therefore, why put the law over Christ when it is Christ to whom God said to listen, and Christ who is the truth?

D - the bible (from what Christ is recorded to have said) also records that some laws were given NOT because they were true from the beginning, but as an allowance for the hard hearts of the people. Then Christ proceeded to correct the error. Please note we have this example because it is one law that the people specifically asked about. People did not come to Christ and ask about every matter in the law. You need to be able to use some reasoning of your own to come to a right decision. So AGAIN - why put the law - which could have had an error or could have been given as an allowance for a people who could do no better - over Christ?
If "Christ" had a problem with anything which is contained within it's pages, which was later canonized, Jesus cared not to later have it 'rectified'.
The NT was not written until after His death and resurrection and ascension. How do you propose He have it rectified? Other than telling people to remain in Him and in His word?

(other than coming to Him for oneself, of course, and asking to know the truth of a matter)
So, as I stated prior... The Bible instructs how human masters can keep human slaves.


And again, how does that override anything Christ says?

A Christian listens to Christ and follows Him.

tam wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:41 pm
B - And yet, He says nothing about abolishing slavery practices which was well established in the OT, and then reinforced in the NT.
Please do the exercise I suggested above, and see where you have room according to Christ's words and example to go out and enslave anyone. As for anything Paul wrote, that has already been addressed.
I already addressed what you had said in the OP.
No you have not. I am asking you questions that directly relate to Christ. His words, His example.

How can you enslave someone if you are meant to make YOURSELF the LEAST, to serve THEM? Just as Christ came to serve, making Himself least (even though He is the King of kings, heir to all God's kingdom).

IF you are a slave of Christ, of God, and a servant to others, who is left for you to enslave?

If you are following the golden rule, and you do not wish to be enslaved, can you then go out and enslave someone else?

Did Christ enslave anyone against their will? If not, and you are His disciple, how can you do so?
Meaning, Lev. 19:18 was already in place when slavery was still issued as God's guide. I touched on this with 'JW'. If you read through Ex. 21 and Lev. 25, it looks as though there exists differing laws between the (free vs enslaved). And by enslaved, I again stress what I mentioned to "1213"; about God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slave. Meaning, the deemed "Bible slave" is at the very bottom of the totem pole.
Well that is your own imaginings. That is not something Christ taught, and even Paul said that we are all equal in Christ (male, female, Jew, Gentile, free or slave**). This is the same thing that Christ taught: You have ONE Master, and you are all brothers.

Your chart should read: God>Christ>man (male, female, free, slave, Jew, Gentile)

(**Keeping in mind that Paul was speaking during a time when slavery was legal, and people (free and slave) were coming to Christ.)
tam wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:41 pm
C - False. Please read Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25.
Are you suggesting Israel always got it right? Or that a temporary allowance might not have been made for them during that time?
I'm saying the golden rule was already in place when slavery was introduced.


Could you answer my question?

(YOU) Keep Isaiah 58 in mind as an example of what God truly wants. And if still in doubt of what God truly wants, then look to Christ. He is the truth and the image of His Father. God is as Christ shows Him to be.

(ME) So you are saying to ignore Ex. 21 and Lev. 25?
I am saying look to Christ to know what is true, to know what God truly wants. Those laws were not meant for us to begin with, but only for Israel - some of which were mishandled (Jeremiah 8:8), some of which were given as an allowance due to the hard-hearts of the people (Matt 19:8).
Those two Chapters do not express what God truly wants? What else may I ignore?


It is not so much about what you ignore. It is about who you listen TO.
Oh, and BTW, Isaiah 58 does not look to speak about the special rules for the deemed lifetime property of their human masters.
“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break EVERY yoke?
(YOU) But what you believe about me has no bearing on the content of what I said. It's just a way for you to be able to dismiss (and/or try and get others to dismiss) what I shared.
(ME) Oh, but it likely does. I'm not dismissing things because you are a believer. I'm dismissing the specific argument you are laying forth here. I'm merely also pointing out that you are presenting such an argument because the one I'm presenting would not paint your believed upon God as a character you could get behind... Hence, the apologetics and the rationalization persists.
I have already responded to that, but lets turn the tables, shall we?

You are dismissing things I (and others) have shared, because it does not paint God in the light that you wish Him to be painted. You are unwilling to truly consider those things that would contradict your position.
(YOU) So then you are just projecting.
(ME) No. Just observing, as we go...
No it was projection 101. If I were a believer, I would do "A", therefore you must be doing "A" as well.


We don't even have the same base of understanding, POI. You think we are supposed to be following the bible (if we are Christian)... even though that very book points to Christ as being the Truth, the One to whom God said to listen, the One who is the Image of God and who speaks just as His Father has commanded Him to speak. I understand that much of Christendom teaches what you seem to believe. But they are in error.

If we are Christian we are supposed to be following and listening to Christ.


Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #109

Post by theophile »

POI wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 9:31 am
theophile wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:22 am Both you and Transponder keep sidestepping the point. And I don't know how to put it any clearer than Tam or I already have:

Slavery becomes servanthood. That is Christianity in a nutshell: everyone is meant to be a servant (/slave).
There certainly is some 'sidestepping' going on here. At best, your argument looks to be as follows:

God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slaves
Umm, no.

God>humankind is what I'm saying, where all humankind is in the image of God / Christ. Even Jesus is just a figurehead of the body of Christ (if you will) which we are all called to join, and which is much greater than Jesus (/one person) but all equally Christ. (As Paul eloquently describes somewhere.)

What you're saying here is the state of the world that the bible / Christian servanthood is trying to correct. It is a fitting description of a fallen world. Of our world today even in a lot of respects. (You could layer on things like plants and animals too in this model.)
POI wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 9:31 am Meaning - "Sure, we are all (slaves); except God of course."
What is God to even speak of God being enslaved or not? But sure, I get your drift.
POI wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 9:31 am But you still have to reconcile that the Bible defines a specific form of 'slavery' in the OT. The non-Israelite human slave is the human master's property, for which can be beaten with virtual impunity for life. Sure, you might be a 'slave' to something; like paying taxes, answering to your boss at work, or even God, but I doubt you are okay with the kind of (slavery) mentioned specifically in the OT. Hence, the (apologetics 101 spin) we now see from some Christians, to completely muddy the waters. For which, BTW, Jesus never cares to then abolish ;)
Don't confuse the slavery spoken of in the law (whether chattel slavery or indentured servitude) with Christian servanthood. And I doubt anyone here is 'okay' with either of these or anything like it. Per above, that is part of a fallen world. Of pharaoh for example and Israel too. That is not what God or Christian servanthood wants or is in anyway condoning of. It has no place in the end game.

If the issue is the law, which I get, then you have to understand that the law too is in the context of a fallen world. That is the only reason it exists in the first place: to get Israel on track. Because like other nations Israel too keeps slaves and does other things we rightly abhor (like animal sacrifices and whatnot). There is a moral development going on here -- you have to recognize that (you can't just call it 'mental gymnastics' like you did before...).

The moral issue Jesus tries to correct (to put it another way) is that Israel became obsessive with the law, and saw it as the path to salvation. His point is, it is not. Hence why I am so dismissive of the law's condoning of slavery. It was in every sense of the word an incremental step and effort to move Israel in the right direction (i.e., to at least give rights to the slaves they insist on keeping). It too has no place in the end game (including its condoning of slavery).

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1050 times

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

Post #110

Post by POI »

(YOU) The bible is not 'it', but that is another topic. Even if the bible WAS it:

A - the bible records God as saying "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."... therefore the words of Christ should come first in that entire book.

B - the bible also records Christ as being the Truth (not the bible, but Christ)... therefore, again, listen to Christ (if indeed you want to know what is true).

C - the bible also records that the law has been mishandled (by the lying pen of the scribes, Jeremiah 8:8)... therefore, why put the law over Christ when it is Christ to whom God said to listen, and Christ who is the truth?

D - the bible (from what Christ is recorded to have said) also records that some laws were given NOT because they were true from the beginning, but as an allowance for the hard hearts of the people. Then Christ proceeded to correct the error. Please note we have this example because it is one law that the people specifically asked about. People did not come to Christ and ask about every matter in the law. You need to be able to use some reasoning of your own to come to a right decision. So AGAIN - why put the law - which could have had an error or could have been given as an allowance for a people who could do no better - over Christ?

(ME) A- As expressed in the Bible.

B- As expressed in the Bible

C - Scribes wrote the Verse you quoted.

D - Nowhere in the NT does it state that OT slavery was in error.

(YOU) If "Christ" had a problem with anything which is contained within it's pages, which was later canonized, Jesus cared not to later have it 'rectified'.

The NT was not written until after His death and resurrection and ascension. How do you propose He have it rectified? Other than telling people to remain in Him and in His word?

(other than coming to Him for oneself, of course, and asking to know the truth of a matter)

(ME) Again, The 'Book', which contains 66 Chapters, written by 40 authors, and ultimately later canonized by the church, (depending on who you ask), is the complete collection of what 'God/Jesus' commanded. Jesus has not come back to from the dead, and the Bible, as written, is still considered "law" by some. So until 'Christ' returns, this is what you are stuck 'defending' thus far. Unless you are saying you have some special portal to God/Jesus/Christ we need to know about?

(YOU) How can you enslave someone if you are meant to make YOURSELF the LEAST, to serve THEM? Just as Christ came to serve, making Himself least (even though He is the King of kings, heir to all God's kingdom).

IF you are a slave of Christ, of God, and a servant to others, who is left for you to enslave?

(ME) I (again) ask, does Jesus agree with Paul?.?.?.?.?.? Please note, ~50% of the NT is apparently authored by Paul. Paul has other things to say. If you wish to play cafeteria Christian, then be my guest. I'm aware that Jesus Himself was a meek, passive, homeless preacher. But let's be real. Some of the 'teachings' of Jesus are discarded by most/all Christians, including you. If we were to adhere to all of them, the world would still be in the stone ages, and we would all be purely communist. But this will likely bring us off topic...

(YOU) If you are following the golden rule, and you do not wish to be enslaved, can you then go out and enslave someone else?

(ME) Again, the golden rule was issued in the OT (lev. 19:18), Thus, yes, you can have slaves. And they are instructed to obey and work hard for their masters, especially if they are Christian masters. And apparently, Jesus has no problem with that... Because He never states otherwise.... He's silent on the matter.

(YOU) Well that is your own imaginings. That is not something Christ taught, and even Paul said that we are all equal in Christ (male, female, Jew, Gentile, free or slave**). This is the same thing that Christ taught: You have ONE Master, and you are all brothers.

Your chart should read: God>Christ>man (male, female, free, slave, Jew, Gentile)

(ME) But your chart is wrong:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Eph. 5:22-24

Ergo: God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slave. Sure, "we ALL bow down to God", but there exists a hierarchy. And 'slaves' are at the very bottom, right above animals... So again, if you wish to reduce your argument to, "we are all servants", have at it. But all 'servants' are not equal. Not by a long shot.

(YOU) (**Keeping in mind that Paul was speaking during a time when slavery was legal, and people (free and slave) were coming to Christ.)

(ME) Slavery was deemed illegal, when humans decided they are better than what the Bible states about slavery. It's not rocket science.

(YOU) Are you suggesting Israel always got it right? Or that a temporary allowance might not have been made for them during that time?

(ME) I'm saying the golden rule was already in place when slavery was introduced.[/quote]

(YOU) Could you answer my question?

(ME) I'm suggesting the Bible expressed the golden rule early, while still providing "a guide to proper slavery practices" - apparently given by God. Thus, was God wrong? Please remember what Paul said: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

(YOU) I have already responded to that, but lets turn the tables, shall we?

You are dismissing things I (and others) have shared, because it does not paint God in the light that you wish Him to be painted. You are unwilling to truly consider those things that would contradict your position.

(ME) Let's simplify here. The Bible provides a guide for slavery. The Bible states slaves may be kept for life, as property, and beaten with virtual impunity. Jesus comes along and either says nothing, or lets Paul continue the charge in favor of slavery practices. Everything else you are bringing up here, is nothing more than 'white noise'.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Post Reply