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]

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'. And so much for Theist apologists trying to claim abolition for Christianity.

I could go further and point to Lane -Craig saying that the global extermination was Ok because we had it coming, or the apologetic that God can order the Midianites killed because we are all His 'pots' to smash as he likes. In which case i say - this is not morality; this is mafia boss diktat. And I suggest this is just another good reason (along with the problem of evil and lack of Bible veracity) to reconsider all these Biblegod -claims.

[POI]

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

(i.e.):

- Jesus answers to God
- the free man answers to Jesus, who then answers to God
- the free woman answers to the free man, who answers to Jesus, Who then answers to God
- the slave answers to the free man, who then answers to Jesus, Who then answers to God

Meaning - "Sure, we are all (slaves); except God of course." I've seen and heard this argument, from apologists, good and plenty. If you wish to 'sidestep' or water down the term 'slave' to this level to 'beat' the topic, then I say, whatever helps you sleep better at night.

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

[1213]

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.

[1213]

...In any country where people aren't made slaves as a populace, one has the option (in principle) to move somewhere else, get another job and house. ...

And pay taxes. In ancient world slave could also be sold and work for other master. Only way to avoid taxes is to not buy, work or own anything. Yes, it is possible, but I think it is as good as it was for slaves who could have escaped and live as refugee in some other place.

[TRANSPONDER]

...In any country where people aren't made slaves as a populace, one has the option (in principle) to move somewhere else, get another job and house. ...

And pay taxes. In ancient world slave could also be sold and work for other master. Only way to avoid taxes is to not buy, work or own anything. Yes, it is possible, but I think it is as good as it was for slaves who could have escaped and live as refugee in some other place.

But the slave does not sell himself. He is bought and sold at the whim of the master. He has no say in the matter. We have a say in the world, even in the matter of taxes - given that we do have to live in the world, but we have some control over how much we use and have to pay.This is a reasonable compromise between paying for services and having the basics done for you or paying no taxes and having to do it all yourself. Taxes is more akin to paying for commodities; slavery is Being a commodity. You don't see the difference?

Let me try three tiers: Paying taxers; conforming to Laws
Being in prison
Being a slave

Being in prison is worse that being obliged top pay taxes for services and having your right to swing ending where someone's nose starts. Being in prison is taking away your rights, but that is because you did something wrong Slavery is losing pretty much all rights and for life and for no reason other than someone wanted a slave. Do you see that functioning in a society and paying your dues is Not the same thing as having no rights for life?

[POI]

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.

Aside from Transponder's response, might I suggest post #92. More specifically to your point, a free man can serve another free man, or Jesus/God. But the free man does not serve the slave. You can go lateral or up, but not down. The slave is to serve the master, not vise versa. The master can beat the slave with impunity, and not vise versa. The master can own the slave as property for life, and not vise versa.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Aside from Transponder's response, might I suggest post #92. More specifically to your point, a free man can serve another free man, or Jesus/God. But the free man does not serve the slave. You can go lateral or up, but not down. The slave is to serve the master, not vise versa. The master can beat the slave with impunity and not vise versa. The master can own the slave as property for life, and not vise versa.

Thank you. Apart from debationg the rationale of whether our law codes imposed by society is effectively slavery or not, I doubt that the argument that because of slavery to God or society pretty much means that slavery was ok when we had it, and for all we can tell would be ok if we had it again, is making Christian apologetics look very good. But the name of the game is never admit anything that makes the Bible look bad, even if it makes Christian apologetics look terrible.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

The words, teachings and example that Christ gave us speak against enslavement of another person.

No they don't. Not once, does Jesus speak against "slavery" practices.

Of course they do. You just seem to want a direct 'do not enslave people', in those exact words.

Not in any words. That's the problem. Both the OT and the NT speaks about slavery.

And you are ignoring anything that speaks against it. Look at the words and the example set by Christ (as posted in the previous two posts), and then tell me where you have room to go out and enslave someone.

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.

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.

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?

Would their mistake (or misunderstanding) override a true understanding?

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

Further, the 'golden rule' was already established in Leviticus, And yet, instruction for slavery, (via Ex. 21 and Lev. 25), was still in place.

See above.

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.

(YOU) But something like that would most likely only stand a chance of working with a disciple of Christ because they are meant to have the same Teacher.
Someone who is not a disciple of Christ is not going to care what Christ said about these things.

(ME) Or could it be that, because you believe this God truly exists, you must find a way to reconcile topics for which you do not agree with 'morally" (i.e.) - the fact that the Bible condones 'slavery'?

Nice deflection (and it doesn't have anything to do with what I was referring to, and that feels REALLY familiar, POI), but this is not an issue for me. At all. A Christian follows Christ. Simple.

No. It is not a 'deflection'.

It absolutely is a deflection. It does not address the content of what I said, and instead it seeks to find a personal reason for why I speak as I do.

I believe this observation cuts to the core of your given responses.

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.

Well, I will admit to you, that if I too thought such an agent truly existed, I too might certainly feel forced to reconcile/rationalize such passages.

So then you are just projecting.


I did not respond to everything you wrote, because you are asking the same questions that have already been responded to in the previous two posts. I would just be repeating myself, and so I refer you (and/or the reader) back to those.



Peace again to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

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. Now I know that Christians claim that slavery was abolished. I'll have to check that as I'm sure that there were slaves. 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 whole idea of 'we are all slaves to Jesusgod' simply makes it unimportant whether people are slaves or not.

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. 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. 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'.

[TRANSPONDER]

I am rather curious about slavery in early Christianity; whether it was or if not, why not. Because I don't see the Bible as a reason to abolish it. I half suspect it was because Christianity initially tended to attract slaves, as largely they were outside the membership of the other religions.

Wiki has a start of an article:
Early Christianity
See also: Christianity and slavery
Both the Stoics and some early Christians opposed the ill treatment of slaves, rather than slavery itself. Advocates of these philosophies saw them as ways to live within human societies as they were, rather than to overthrow entrenched institutions. In the Christian scriptures, equal pay[clarification needed] and fair treatment of slaves was enjoined upon slave masters, and slaves were advised to obey their earthly masters, even if their masters are unfair, and lawfully obtain freedom if possible.[103][104][105][106]

Certain senior Christian leaders (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) called for good treatment for slaves and condemned slavery, while others supported it.[citation needed] Christianity gave slaves an equal place within the religion, allowing them to participate in the liturgy. According to tradition, Pope Clement I (term c. 92–99), Pope Pius I (158–167) and Pope Callixtus I (c. 217–222) were former slaves.[107]

Writing after the legalization of Christianity by Roman authorities, Saint Augustine, who came from an aristocratic background and likely grew up in home where slave labor was utilized, described slavery as being against God's intention and resulting from sin.[108] By the early 4th century, the manumission within the church, was incorporated into Roman law. Slaves could be freed by a ritual in a church, officiated by an ordained bishop or priest. Subsequent laws, such as the Novella 142 of Justinian in the sixth century, gave to the bishops the power to free slaves.[109] The early Christian Church never renounced slavery as an institution outright, choosing instead to promote more humane treatment for slaves who according to the Church were commanded by God to obey their earthly masters. In contrast to the pagan Roman viewpoint, Roman Christians, even those who were not abolitionists, preached that slaves were still human and not property. Overall Roman attitudes towards slavery generally emphasized more humane treatment of slaves and promoted manumission. "