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]

They may also be beaten, with impunity; provided they do not die immediately or have their eyes/teeth removed:

If by "may" you mean they are permitted (ie given permission ) to beat their slaves this is not the case. As for "impunity" that has been explained earlier. The Mosaic law was explicit both against unloving behaviour and physical abuse of slaves.

JW

SLAVE BEATING AND THE HEBREWS BIBLE

Does the Mosaic law say or imply under certain circumstances a slave may be beaten with impunity? [This post]
viewtopic.php?p=1079279#p1079279

Did slave owners in biblical times escape absolutely ALL punishment if unintentional manslaughter could be established?[Exodus 21:20-21 explained ]
viewtopic.php?p=1078563#p1078563

Does the Hebrew bible condone beating one's slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078537#p1078537

Does the Hebrew bible say owners may beat their slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078598#p1078598

Does the Hebrew bible say slave owners were allowed to beat their slaves ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p764027

Does the Hebrew bible instruct HOW beat one's slave?
viewtopic.php?p=1078725#p1078725

Is not demanding the death penalty for all beatings of slave "effectively" de facto permission ?
viewtopic.php?p=1078846#p1078846

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

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[TRANSPONDER]

They may also be beaten, with impunity; provided they do not die immediately or have their eyes/teeth removed:

If by "may" you mean they are permitted (ie given permission ) to beat their slaves this is not the case. As for "impunity" that has been explained earlier. The Mosaic law was explicit both against unloving behaviour and physical abuse of slaves.

JW

SLAVE BEATING AND THE HEBREWS BIBLE

Does the Mosaic law say or imply under certain circumstances a slave may be beaten with impunity? [This post]
viewtopic.php?p=1079279#p1079279

Did slave owners in biblical times escape absolutely ALL punishment if unintentional manslaughter could be established?[Exodus 21:20-21 explained ]
viewtopic.php?p=1078563#p1078563

Does the Hebrew bible condone beating one's slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078537#p1078537

Does the Hebrew bible say owners may beat their slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078598#p1078598

Does the Hebrew bible say slave owners were allowed to beat their slaves ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p764027

Does the Hebrew bible instruct HOW beat one's slave?
viewtopic.php?p=1078725#p1078725

Is not demanding the death penalty for all beatings of slave "effectively" de facto permission ?
viewtopic.php?p=1078846#p1078846

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

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

That is irrelevant. There is a world of difference between saying 'if you chew gum you will not be punished if you do not spit it on the sidewalk' and 'You should chew gum'. Either way it is endorsing the sale, purchase and consuming of gum. Now relate that to slavery and see that it in no way implies anything else but acceptance of slavery. What you are doing (if anyone hadn't seen it) is the strawman fallacy - replacing an argument with a different one that is easy to knock down, though I must say it was quite cunningly made up to look like a paraphrase. Whether or not that does you any credit, I leave to others.

[POI]

If by "may" you mean they are permitted (ie given permission ) to beat their slaves this is not the case. As for "impunity" that has been explained earlier. The Mosaic law was explicit both against unloving behaviour and physical abuse of slaves.

Post #68:

Well, apparently God was already consulted on the matters of 'slavery'. Seems He instructs that punishment is only to be issued in the result of immediate death, or missing eyes/teeth. So yea, you (can and may) otherwise beat your slaves from the backside, at will, with IMPUNITY - provided you do not infringe upon the three already noted outcomes.

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

Reference:

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. (Ex. 21:20-21)

So, yet again, God has weighed in on the matter. The instructions seem pretty clear. God wants you punished IF you kill them or remove their eyes/teeth. Otherwise, God instructs you are not to be punished. This means all other beatings of the master's slaves are exempt from God's commanded punishment. If God specifically assigns no punishment, then this means God is not against it....

But sure, "God does not give permission"

[JehovahsWitness]

Reference:

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. (Ex. 21:20-21)

Congratulation on demonstrating your ability to use the font keys but the point has still been addressed and remains unrefuted but for repetiton and ... colour .


Did slave owners in biblical times escape absolutely ALL punishment if unintentional manslaughter could be established?[Exodus 21:20-21 explained ]
viewtopic.php?p=1078563#p1078563




JW

[POI]

If by "may" you mean they are permitted (ie given permission ) to beat their slaves this is not the case. As for "impunity" that has been explained earlier. The Mosaic law was explicit both against unloving behaviour and physical abuse of slaves.

Post #68:

Well, apparently God was already consulted on the matters of 'slavery'. Seems He instructs that punishment is only to be issued in the result of immediate death, or missing eyes/teeth. So yea, you (can and may) otherwise beat your slaves from the backside, at will, with IMPUNITY - provided you do not infringe upon the three already noted outcomes.

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

Reference:

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. (Ex. 21:20-21)

So, yet again, God has weighed in on the matter. The instructions seem pretty clear. God wants you punished IF you kill them or remove their eyes/teeth. Otherwise, God instructs you are not to be punished. This means all other beatings of the master's slaves are exempt from God's commanded punishment. If God specifically assigns no punishment, then this means God is not against it....

Congratulation on demonstrating your ability to use the font keys but the point has still been addressed and remains unrefuted but for repetiton and ... colour .


Did slave owners in biblical times escape absolutely ALL punishment if unintentional manslaughter could be established?[Exodus 21:20-21 explained ]
viewtopic.php?p=1078563#p1078563




JW

Congratulations on not addressing my point(s) and trying to deflect, with a cheap dig --- in the hopes of throwing off the scent. My argument stands, and has not been disputed --- (especially by you). Post #46 for starters, and for reference....

If you care to engage it, please do so....

(Edit) - Prior points raised, for which you never really acknowledged/disputed....

- The slave was the master's money, so killing them was not very wise This is likely why the 'instruction writer' wrote not to kill them. So the intent is not to kill them, But if they should die much later, they are not to be punished. In God's eyes, there was no intent to actually kill them. (logic)... But ruffing them up, for not working to the max, is perfectly fine, apparently.

- God instructs no punishment for merely beating them. And yet, society might punish the master? So society has more empathy, or a need for "justice", than God?

[JehovahsWitness]

...There is a world of difference between saying 'if you chew gum you will not be punished if you do not spit it on the sidewalk' and 'You should chew gum'.

That is exactly the point, the only explicit point made when context is not completely disregarded is "If you beat your slave and he does not die immediately you will not be executed" All subsequent inferrences of permission/instruction / approval are unsupported.

...Either way it is endorsing the sale, purchase and consuming of gum.

If your point is the Hebrew bible approves and supports slavery as stipulated in Hebrew law that'is correct ; that is not problematic. If your point is that the bible approves and supports slave BEATING, I think it has adequately been demonstrated that was not the case.

...it in no way implies anything else but acceptance of slavery.

Under the Hebrew system. ..yes. So ?!

What you are doing (if anyone hadn't seen it) is the strawman fallacy

Not at all, I have simply addressed the specific claims being made (I usually quote word for word the claim being addressed in the rebuttal)

If somebody says .. " the bible says you can beat your slave" , I address the point of whether the bible says you can beat your slave.

If someone claims.. " the bible implies a slaveowners can beat their slaves or says its silence on the matter amounts to permission to beat ones slave I address that.

Despite the 101 ways the same basic objection can be worded (or the font size or colour used) they can all be squashed with the same simple fact: the bible does not say, tell, instruct imply, condone, encourage, permit or allow Hebrew slaveowners to beat their slaves with impunity.


No strawman required.


JW

[TRANSPONDER]

Correct. That there were some punishments imposed for harm beyond the limits laid down by Leviticus is nothing to do with the OT providing Rules for owning chattel slaves (foreigners) since the OT laid down a rule to release Hebrew slaves after 7 years, ready or not (which makes nonsense of the financial safely -net apologetic). Our JW pal gave links, one leading to Jesus making a contract (1) null and void by fulfilling it, one to his own post above and one relating to ...something as much of a red herring. These links he puts aren't really worth the bother of looking up. He does much better himself though really not good enough.

(1) with a colour picture of two dudes in hard hats (construction contract, see?) though what that does to help the explanation I have no idea. But by now I am used to JW material being half -truths, misdirection and red herrings all the way through.

[JehovahsWitness]

... the OT providing Rules for owning chattel slaves (foreigners)

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 "chattel" slaves as this usually refers to the slaves having absolutely no rights which was not the case under the Hebrew system.

Foreign slaves enjoyed certain rights not least over their bodily integity as well as the right to labour protection laws, marriage and inheritance laws and very important in Hebrew society, the right to worship the same God and be seen by that one as valuable and precious



JW


RELATED POSTS

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

Was chattel slavery as practiced under the American slave trade system, the same as the lifelong slavery legilsated in ancient Israel?
viewtopic.php?p=1079902#p1079902

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, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING

[POI]

... the OT providing Rules for owning chattel slaves (foreigners)

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.

Foreign slaves enjoyed certain rights not least over their bodily integity as well as the right to labour protection laws, marriage and inheritance laws and very important in Hebrew society, the right to worship the same God and be seen by that one as valuable and precious



JW

HAHAHAHA. I'm sorry, but you kill me

[POI]

... the OT providing Rules for owning chattel slaves (foreigners)

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.

They are deemed the slave master's property, for life. The masters received no punishment, (in God's eyes), for beating them. So yea, call it what you will

Foreign slaves enjoyed certain rights not least over their bodily integity as well as the right to labour protection laws, marriage and inheritance laws and very important in Hebrew society, the right to worship the same God and be seen by that one as valuable and precious



JW

Oh, they enjoyed being deemed lifetime property, for life? Did you ask all of them?