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.

[POI]

So to answer your question, that is how a Christian rationalizes the laws on slavery: they were never meant to be the final word on the matter. They were only the words that were necessary at the time, to keep Israel in line, but also preventing Israel from falling even further astray.

If this were the case, Jesus would have spoken against "slavery". He either said nothing on the topic, or was ambiguous/cryptic. As stated to others, Jesus had no problem voicing his likes/dislikes. Didn't He realize this subject would be enforced after He was gone? Didn't He also realize this topic is very large? One simple command from him would firm his stance. But instead, he didn't. If he was truly wise, he would know such a large subject matter would fester for thousands of years after him. He cared enough to at least tell people many things he did not like. But with "slavery", silence.

(As to why Jesus never condemns slavery down the line I would suggest again because he transforms it into Christian servanthood.)

This has already been addressed ad nauseam. There exists many types of 'servants'. I'm speaking about the SPECIFIC kind approved in the Bible. The OT allows for lifetime property rights of deemed slaves, and also commands much impunity if beaten. Jesus either says nothing, or allows for Paul to muck it up, on His behalf.

[Miles]

The law is not a 'guide/instruction manual' but a control (every law is a 'thou shall not' on some level).

10 Commandments

Thou shall honour thy father and thy mother.
Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21

Thou shall remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21

Laws of Passover

"with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's passover.
Exodus 12:11

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at dusk is the LORD's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD; seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work.
 Leviticus 23:5–8

.

[JehovahsWitness]

... the slave master is absolved from any "punishment", and has immunity from consequences, as ordered by 'god'.

DID YHWH ORDER ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF BEATING ONE'S SLAVE?

There is no action that can be immune from any consequence; scripturally nothing violates the divine principle that one REAPS what one sows.

JOB 34:11

For he will reward a man according to what he does and bring upon him the consequences of his ways

There is absolutely no scriptural basis to the proposal that a slavebeater has some kind of fictional universal and absolute immunity from all consequences ( or even all punishment - For more detailed analysis please see post #43 ) for actions that violate the principle and letter of the law. There are 613 orders and directives in the Hebrew bible and none stipulating (ordering) universal immunity.

An argument from silence (since the death penalty was not applied under certain circumstances, the accused gains total immunity from punishment for ALL CRIMES) is a legal absurdity. It is ludicrous to suggest the an order was issued by being silent.




JW




SLAVE BEATING AND THE HEBREWS BIBLE

Did slave owners in biblical times escape absolutely ALL punishment if unintentional manslaughter could be established?
viewtopic.php?p=1078563#p1078563

Did God ORDER absolute immunity for slavebeaters ?
viewtopic.php?p=1079551#p1079551

Why was there no law that specifically stated "you must not beat your slave"?
viewtopic.php?p=1079578#p1079578

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

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[tam]

Peace to you,

How could Christ condemn slavery (as in 'doulos'; bond-servant) when that is something He told His apostles to be to one another? When He says to take up His yoke (which is light - and means to do HIS will, to do HIS work... as a servant does the work of His master)?


And here is what Christ did even with his apostles:

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

The word being used for servant is the same word used for slave (doulos; bond servant):

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/


**

The ENslavement - taking a person against their will and making them a slave - that is not something Christ taught (in word or deed), as it goes against the principal of the golden rule, against love, and other instructions from Christ (such as making ONESELF the least). Even God does not force anyone to serve Him. But instead wants WILLING servants, those who do so out of love and JOY.


**

Leviticus does not apply. We are not under Leviticus (or that law). We are under Christ.


Peace again.

[POI]

The reference only refered to capital punishment .[/color][/indent]
For more detailed analysis please see post #43 and post #50

This is wishful thinking. Yet again, God has absolutely no problem ordering the specifics. See below (expanded response of post 142) <i.e.>:

Exodus 21 (alone) has no problem specifying the type of punishment, per "punishable transaction" (i.e.)

17 “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist[d] and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

HOWEVER, in Verse 20-21 and Verses 26-27, notice God makes special caveats for the slave in the master's punishment:

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.

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.


If ANY type of 'punishment' was due, God demonstrates to have absolutely NO problem INSTRUCTING exactly WHAT this 'punishment' would be....

Thus, the slave master is absolved from any "punishment", and has immunity from consequences, as ordered by 'god'. And why? Because the slave is his money/property.

See my response directly above.

See my response 2 pages above.

Again, I'm not going to play 'where's Waldo'. If you have a specific rebuttal, please do so; or cut/paste what you feel is relevant. This thread is getting too long to simply hunt for stuff.

[JehovahsWitness]

See my response directly above.

I can best reply by repeating the following ....

Again, I'm not going to play 'where's Waldo'. If you have a specific rebuttal, please do so; or cut/paste what you feel is relevant. This thread is getting too long to simply hunt for stuff.

I will add that you can provide a link to the relevant answer if you wish. (I will of course respond to your providing the specific link to your response as you have done when I provided a link to my specific responses).




JW

[TRANSPONDER]

... the slave master is absolved from any "punishment", and has immunity from consequences, as ordered by 'god'.

There is no action that can be immune from and consequences.

Then that is saying that God's doings do not matter because His not doing something (like not punishing a slaveowner who works his slave over and he dies right away - no legal consequence, see?) then consequences will happen apart from that, right? In which case, why do we need God to send any laws at all?

Cue 'because of our hardness of heart' God had to give laws to have some kind of order. In which case the whole moral of slaveowning comes up again. As well as divorce, as was raised in another thread, or the lunacy of giving your house, car and wife to someone who steals your wallet, or casting out demons which isn't true, or changing the genetics of sheep with a striped pole. Guidance is needed and what was given was not good enough. This is the writing of men whose science, morals and historical understanding was not what they are today. Positing consequences apart from Laws placed by God nullifies the law and makes it a matter of natural law. Without a god needed.

Of course, an apologist might trot out the hellthreat answer but as I recall, you don't do that one.

[POI]

See my response directly above.

I can best reply by repeating the following ....

Again, I'm not going to play 'where's Waldo'. If you have a specific rebuttal, please do so; or cut/paste what you feel is relevant. This thread is getting too long to simply hunt for stuff.

I will add that you can provide a link to the relevant answer if you wish. (I will of course respond to your providing the specific link to your response as you have done when I provided a link to my specific responses).




JW

I cut/pasted post 142. And when you chopped the answer (see my reply directly above), that meant within the same post and "directly above". -- No hunting required.

Now, are you going to offer your rebuttal, or continue with "Where's Waldo'?

[TRANSPONDER]

... the slave master is absolved from any "punishment", and has immunity from consequences, as ordered by 'god'.

DID YHWH ORDER ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM THE CINSEQUENCES OF BEATING ONE'S SLAVE?

There is no action that can be immune from any consequence; scripturally nothing violates the divine principle that one REAPS what one sows.

JOB 34:11

For he will reward a man according to what he does and bring upon him the consequences of his ways

There is absolutely no scriptural basis to the proposal that a slavebeater has kind of some fictional universal and absolute immunity from all consequences ( or even all punishment see post #43 ) for actions that violate the principle and letter of the law. There are 613 order and directives in the Hebrew bible and not one stipulating (ordering) universal immunity.




JW

Nonsense. Either these are God's rules in which case if you follow them how can he hand out punishment, or if they are not, what Rules can we take as being God's rather than man's?

[JehovahsWitness]

I cut/pasted post 142. ... No hunting required.

Now, are you going to offer your rebuttal, or continue with "Where's Waldo'?

I can see no evidence of that. Please provide the link or direct me to where I can examine the evidence for myself. Please cut and pas the the entire post and the lead up (the two or three POSTS previous) so I can properly assess your allegations.