A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

[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.

[JehovahsWitness]

...The rules (whether laws or not) make it clear that Hebrews can own foreigners as chattel -slaves ...

CHATTEL SLAVERY


source: https://aaregistry.org/story/chattel-sl ... efinition/

One reason I insist on speaking of the enslavement of Africans as chattel slavery rather than slavery is because in the English language it is possible to confuse a certain idea of servitude with slavery. An African who was enslaved had no personal or private rights and was expressly the property of another person to be held, used, or abused as the owner saw fit. Imagine the hell of this predicament and you are on the edge of the nightmare of chattel slavery. - Slavery Remembrance Day memorial lecture 2007, Dr Molefi Kete Asante

RELATED POSTS

What was CHATTEL slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1079718#p1079718

Were foreign slaves considered chattel under the Hebrew system?
viewtopic.php?p=1079301#p1079301

What did being a man's "property" mean to the ancient Hebrews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p814401

Is the slavery that existed under bible law comparable to the European & American slave trade?[regulations]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p811779

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

Thank you. That is an exact parallel of what Hebrew ownership of non - Hebrew slaves was.

No, that is not true. Foreign slaves, under the Hebrew system, most certainly and demonstrativey retained their human rights and had social and legal protections - for a more detailed analysis see post #128

[TRANSPONDER]

...The rules (whether laws or not) make it clear that Hebrews can own foreigners as chattel -slaves ...

CHATTEL SLAVERY


source: https://aaregistry.org/story/chattel-sl ... efinition/

One reason I insist on speaking of the enslavement of Africans as chattel slavery rather than slavery is because in the English language it is possible to confuse a certain idea of servitude with slavery. An African who was enslaved had no personal or private rights and was expressly the property of another person to be held, used, or abused as the owner saw fit. Imagine the hell of this predicament and you are on the edge of the nightmare of chattel slavery. - Slavery Remembrance Day memorial lecture 2007, Dr Molefi Kete Asante

RELATED POSTS

What was CHATTEL slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1079718#p1079718

Were foreign slaves considered chattle under the Hebrew system?
viewtopic.php?p=1079301#p1079301

What did being a man's "property" mean to the ancient Hebrews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p814401

Is the slavery that existed under bible law comparable to the European & American slave trade?[regulations]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p811779

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

Thank you. That is an exact parallel of what Hebrew ownership of non - Hebrew slaves was.

No, that is not true. Foreign slaves, under the Hebrew system, most certainly and demonstrativey retained their human rights and had social and legal protections - for a more detailed analysis see post #128

You answered badly and again pulling a strawman: and moreover misspelled 'Chattel'.

"Lifetime slavery for foreigners was approved in Hebrew law and I see nothing problematic in that. It would be inaccurate however to refer to such slaves as "chattle" slaves as this means they had absolutely no rights which was not the case under the Hebrew system"

Chattel slavery means that one owns them as property. That a nation or culture imposes rights for their treatment does not mean that they are regarded as having any intrinsic rights. Even if they (somehow) did, they would still be property for life and thus chattel slaves.

"Lifetime slavery for foreigners was approved in Hebrew law and I see nothing problematic in that"

I'm certain that you do not mean that the way it reads.

[JehovahsWitness]

Chattel slavery means that one owns them as property. That a nation or culture imposes rights for their treatment does not mean that they are regarded as having any intrinsic rights.

That may be the case but under the HEBREW SYSTEM both slave and freeman were indeed regarded as having any intrinsic rights.





JW


ps: thanks for the spellcheck ; duly corrected

[JehovahsWitness]

Your link above was an article specifically related to American chattel -slavery so of course it related to the enslavement of Africans.

If your point is that chattel slavery is not universally understood and practiced the same way and can vary in meaning from one era and nationality to another, I'll take it.

In the light of the above, the present discussion is about the enslavement as practiced by ancient Hebrews the terms of which are defined clearly in their scripture and do not necessarily reflect present day usage.

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

LOVE & SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... ABOLITION

[POI]

An irrelevant tangent....

... started the second you placed the argument in place (to decipher the difference between laws and rules)

I did no such thing. Do you know the difference between speaking of "a law" and "The Law"?







J W

Again with another red herring. You do this a lot - which further solidifies post 145.

"This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first."

God weighed in on the enslaved. If beaten by their masters, and they recover, no criminal/civil punishment is to be applied towards the slave master, and no instructed compensation is ordered/suggested/commanded/other for the slave. And why? Well, because, as God reiterates specifically, in His law/rule/whim/opinion/announcement/suggestion/other, the slave is the master's property. -- (Exodus 20:20-21).

[POI]

....God orders no criminal/civil charges against the master, and God orders NO compensation for the slave.

No that is not true, no such ORDER can be found in scripture. For more detailed analysis please see post #173

Again with another attempt at a red herring -->"This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first."

You are trying to get me to instead argue that He did not 'ORDER' it.

We can all read Exodus 21:20-21:

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Further, the instructed 'compensation' for the slave, is only to come if they loose an eye/tooth (Ex. 21:27). This is why masters were careful to beat them on the slave's back.

[POI]

Your link above was an article specifically related to American chattel -slavery so of course it related to the enslavement of Africans.

If your point is that chattel slavery is not universally understood and practiced the same way and can vary in meaning from one era and nationality to another, I'll take it.

In the light of the above, the present discussion is about the enslavement as practiced by ancient Hebrews the terms of which are defined clearly in their scripture and do not necessarily reflect present day usage.

Post 145

[JehovahsWitness]

Your link above was an article specifically related to American chattel -slavery so of course it related to the enslavement of Africans.

If your point is that chattel slavery is not universally understood and practiced the same way and can vary in meaning from one era and nationality to another, I'll take it.

In the light of the above, the present discussion is about the enslavement as practiced by ancient Hebrews the terms of which are defined clearly in their scripture and do not necessarily reflect present day usage.

Post 145

I cannot see the relevance of Post #145 to the points made above but since it was not I who proposed that American Chattel slavery is different from that under discussion, perhaps you should redirect your post to TRANSPONDER who made that point.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

....God orders no criminal/civil charges against the master, and God orders NO compensation for the slave.

No that is not true, no such ORDER can be found in scripture. For more detailed analysis please see post #173

Again with another attempt at a red herring -->

There is no "Red herring" here. You explicitly state as quoted above that God ordered something and base your conclusion on the claimed order. [/b]It is thus perfectly legitimate to point out that there is in fact no such order.

If a policemen turned up at your house and said "The judge has ordered your car be confiscated" it would indeed be relevant to point out if no such order has been issued. If however you believe you can produce an order that states that ...

- no criminal/civil charges may be levied against someone accused or BEATING their slave and ..
- no compensation may be issued to a slave who is victim of a beating

... the issue is easily settled : produce the order.If someone attempt to tow your car you would want to see in black and white they have been ORDERED to do so. It is not a red herring to request we read the order that states what you claim.

[POI]

Your link above was an article specifically related to American chattel -slavery so of course it related to the enslavement of Africans.

If your point is that chattel slavery is not universally understood and practiced the same way and can vary in meaning from one era and nationality to another, I'll take it.

In the light of the above, the present discussion is about the enslavement as practiced by ancient Hebrews the terms of which are defined clearly in their scripture and do not necessarily reflect present day usage.

Post 145

I cannot see the relevance of Post #145.

(Please reference what you stated above in bold red)

(post 145 relevance) - To instead believe God had a hand in any of this topic, looks to require mental gymnastics, hoop jumping, rationalization, 'apologetics', and the like. Additional assumptions are required.