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.

[TRANSPONDER]

That won't do for me. It neither answers the problem of neither God, Jesus or Paul denouncing slavery nor does it sweep the problem under the rug.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #411]

How can you say it is swept under the rug when it is in the Bible?

Sweeping slavery under the rug is pretending chattel slavery doesn't exist right now and we are probably the chattel.

I guess this has all be on my mind but I know in China they have two currencies, one for outside and one for inside the country.

Currency is a fancy word for 'slave bucks'. The wholesale printing of money in recent years was an act of enslavement to me.

Also if you want to prove you arent a slave just stop paying taxes.

[Purple Knight]

I cannot buy that one because ownership of people as property is something very specific and the Bible knows it; it knows that people don't want to be slaves, but it nowhere condemns it.

I see the excuse that it was not as bad as American slavery as hopefully speculative and irrelevant. Owning people as slaves is bad and they don't want to be owned even in Rome where some slaves might be treated quite well. They all wanted to be free.

They also want to be aristocrats. That doesn't mean they can. We have, on Earth, always had, and continue to have, a society where some live in luxury and others must toil.

I don't buy the working conditions excuse. People get scammed online. That does not excuse slavery. People get robbed or hit by cars. That does not excuse slavery. People get sold rubbish goods or get underpaid. That does not excuse (nor equate) to slavery.

Why not? Because they can quit and starve? When people want to be free they want options. Real ones. If they didn't get any then they aren't freer than they were. Maybe it will make more sense if I stop talking about defining slavery and start talking about defining freedom. Freedom is a desirable state but the work force of today does not possess it. They must toil for the enrichment of others. They will die in debt. They also want to be free and are not.

If this or that company has poor working conditions (and not for all I know a disability employment policy) that can be addressed because we have legal standards.

So more important than the conditions people actually live in is the letter of the law? It's better to live in modern America and be exploited and threatened with firing every day and forced to work off the clock and knowing you'll starve and die if you lose your job, than to be a Hebrew slave who is beaten sometimes but fundamentally secure, and this is because regardless of whether the American can get help, regardless of whether the law will be enforced, the letter of the law agrees with her so that's something?

That includes 'No Slavery'. The Bible does not, and if God knew as much as modern humans (as well as existing of course) He should have said something. Like an 11th commandment. After all, his people had only just been freed from slavery.

No it doesn't, so if we're comparing the letter of the law to the letter of the law - apples to apples - the modern world has the clear advantage.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #411]

How can you say it is swept under the rug when it is in the Bible?

Sweeping slavery under the rug is pretending chattel slavery doesn't exist right now and we are probably the chattel.

I guess this has all be on my mind but I know in China they have two currencies, one for outside and one for inside the country.

Currency is a fancy word for 'slave bucks'. The wholesale printing of money in recent years was an act of enslavement to me.

Also if you want to prove you arent a slave just stop paying taxes.

It is an attempt to sweep it under the rug when apolopgists try to say it isn't slavery at all, or it's sweepable under the rug on the grounds that we are effectively slaves today.

I reject both those apologetics.

[TRANSPONDER]

I cannot buy that one because ownership of people as property is something very specific and the Bible knows it; it knows that people don't want to be slaves, but it nowhere condemns it.

I see the excuse that it was not as bad as American slavery as hopefully speculative and irrelevant. Owning people as slaves is bad and they don't want to be owned even in Rome where some slaves might be treated quite well. They all wanted to be free.

They also want to be aristocrats. That doesn't mean they can. We have, on Earth, always had, and continue to have, a society where some live in luxury and others must toil.

I don't buy the working conditions excuse. People get scammed online. That does not excuse slavery. People get robbed or hit by cars. That does not excuse slavery. People get sold rubbish goods or get underpaid. That does not excuse (nor equate) to slavery.

Why not? Because they can quit and starve? When people want to be free they want options. Real ones. If they didn't get any then they aren't freer than they were. Maybe it will make more sense if I stop talking about defining slavery and start talking about defining freedom. Freedom is a desirable state but the work force of today does not possess it. They must toil for the enrichment of others. They will die in debt. They also want to be free and are not.

If this or that company has poor working conditions (and not for all I know a disability employment policy) that can be addressed because we have legal standards.

So more important than the conditions people actually live in is the letter of the law? It's better to live in modern America and be exploited and threatened with firing every day and forced to work off the clock and knowing you'll starve and die if you lose your job, than to be a Hebrew slave who is beaten sometimes but fundamentally secure, and this is because regardless of whether the American can get help, regardless of whether the law will be enforced, the letter of the law agrees with her so that's something?

That includes 'No Slavery'. The Bible does not, and if God knew as much as modern humans (as well as existing of course) He should have said something. Like an 11th commandment. After all, his people had only just been freed from slavery.

No it doesn't, so if we're comparing the letter of the law to the letter of the law - apples to apples - the modern world has the clear advantage.

This is all misdirection and that includes trying to obscure the conditions of slaves in Rome. They could be worked to death in the mines or put in charge of an estate. They could become rich. Even influential But they were not free. They were the property of their owners and that is what distinguishes slavery from not being a slave, even if one is worked to death for a pittance or starving because they have no job. None of that is relevant to the condition of being a slave - someone else's property for life. It is now deemed wrong and (unless one opts for a god who doesn't know the future) God should have known it would be wrong and (if he was moral) should have denounced it, made it a commandment or said that we allow it because of your hard hearts, but it is wrong to own another human being.Nothing, even through they knew that slaves would rather be free, even if it meant they couldn't guarantee food and a roof.

That there is no denunciation tells me that the bible was written by men and not a god.

I'm not sure which side you are on towards the end.You are equivocating freedom. In slavery terms that is specific. In terms of living it is relative, even metaphorical. it is as much a false argument as those who say we are slaves because we cannot fly. Limitations of life or society are nothing to do with being owned for life as property, which is what chattel slavery is and everything else is irrelevant really.

[Purple Knight]

This is all misdirection and that includes trying to obscure the conditions of slaves in Rome. They could be worked to death

Then that's bad. It's bad to be worked to death. I condemn people being worked to death.

They were the property of their owners and that is what distinguishes slavery from not being a slave,

Then it's irrelevant whether someone is a slave or not. Irrelevant. What is on paper is irrelevant to whether some thing you are doing to someone is bad or not. That is my entire argument.

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #411]

How can you say it is swept under the rug when it is in the Bible?

Sweeping slavery under the rug is pretending chattel slavery doesn't exist right now and we are probably the chattel.

I guess this has all be on my mind but I know in China they have two currencies, one for outside and one for inside the country.

Currency is a fancy word for 'slave bucks'. The wholesale printing of money in recent years was an act of enslavement to me.

Also if you want to prove you arent a slave just stop paying taxes.

Here's a question... Since you seem to agree that all slavery is bad, then why doesn't God?

Also, as a refresher, please look at my OP question for debate (i.e.):

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....?

God/Jesus apparently weighed in on 100's of do's and don'ts - (lying, theft, trespassing, blasphemy, eating shrimp, etc etc etc etc etc). God/Jesus also knows humans will perpetually defy all such do's and don'ts. And yet, He still made laws about what you should and should not do.

So again, as post #401 states, God condones <slavery (and/or) chattel slavery>. God does not condemn such practices, like He does for the 100's of other seemingly 'sinful' practices -- (for which many today we humans practically ignore anyways). I'm also willing to bet, that if you were to rank the offensiveness of all stated sins in the Bible, <slavery> would be near the top (IF) it had actually been deemed a sin.

But it's not deemed a 'sin'. It is instead regulated. And not only is it 'regulated', it's done in a way where Christians could/can "regulate" slavery practices. Meaning, the instructions are either purposefully or unpurposefully left vague. Vague enough to allow for the later African slave trade --- (via Leviticus 25 alone).

Was <slavery> laws left vague purposefully, or, were the Bible writer(s) just ignorant?

[TRANSPONDER]

This is all misdirection and that includes trying to obscure the conditions of slaves in Rome. They could be worked to death

Then that's bad. It's bad to be worked to death. I condemn people being worked to death.

They were the property of their owners and that is what distinguishes slavery from not being a slave,

Then it's irrelevant whether someone is a slave or not. Irrelevant. What is on paper is irrelevant to whether some thing you are doing to someone is bad or not. That is my entire argument.

It is far from irrelevant . It is the basis of what is slavery and what is not. Whether one person is owned as property for life or not. What is irrelevant actually is how that person gets treated. Just as the state of being a paid employee is known and acceptable and whether the condition of employment are fair or not is relevant of course but is not the arbiter of whether they are employed or not.

[Wootah]

[Replying to POI in post #417]

It's like abolishing gravity. Even God had to be our servant in order to rescue us.

At the Uvalde school shooting the police in effect said we will not be a slave to those children and will not serve them. Now thru live with the shame.

All we get to do is choose our master. God or Satan.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to POI in post #417]

It's like abolishing gravity. Even God had to be our servant in order to rescue us.

From his own wrath, of which, we're still under threat.

At the Uvalde school shooting the police in effect said we will not be a slave to those children and will not serve them. Now they live with the shame.

I'd agree they were slaves to their own cowardice.

All we get to do is choose our master. God or Satan.

Considering neither one of those two can be shown to exist beyond mere speculation, those choices are as empty as the claims on which they're predicated.

As for me, I'm happy being a slave to bacon breakfasts and Monster coffees.