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]

I know I said I was done. But since I'm sure others are reading these exchanges, I thought I would dissect another one of your assertions, so the Christian readers can see how NOT to argue for Biblical slavery. It's kind of a long response, but demonstrates how you continue to try and distract the interlocutor away from the more obvious points about Biblical slavery, (that make Christians uncomfortable)

My argument, which was kind of addressed above, is that differing laws exist between (the enslaved VS the free).

You are wrong: different RULES one LAW

Again, with yet another red herring. No problem, we all expect this from you by now. And sure, I'll chase it again...

So sure, let's explore the difference between a rule verses a law -- (why not ):

Rules vs Laws

The main difference between rules and laws is the consequences associated with breaking them. While each is developed to invoke a sense of order, fair play, and safety, the weight of a law is much heavier than the weight of a rule.

Laws are like the legal version of rules. When you are a child, a parent sets rules to be followed. When you are in a society, the government sets laws to be followed. When a rule is broken, the consequences tend to be uncomfortable but mild in comparison to the breaking of a law.

Laws are enforced by a higher governmental office, usually the police and the prosecutor’s office. Laws are written in specific code so that they can be interpreted as needed. When you break a law there is legal action that follows, provided that you are caught.

Rules are more flexible and carry low end consequences. You can set up rules for games, rules for the home, even rules for fighting or being intimate with a partner. Rules are personal in nature, and they are often adjusted as the conditions and circumstances of the home change.

Laws must be passed through due process in order to take effect. A law starts off as a bill, and must go through a series of checks, balances, and votes in order to become a law. Rules are merely set and adjusted as the need arises, and should be followed out of respect for those setting the rules.

Read more: Difference Between Rules and Laws | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... z7UaQsVnZe

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

Thus, if we explore the distinction above, we simply replace government with God, and viola.

Now, let's ask God. Is battery against the law? I trust we agree it is against God's law.

Definition: A battery occurs when one “causes bodily harm" to a person.[/i]" - google

Okay, now let's go back to my prior statement:

"My prior argument == differing laws exist between (the enslaved VS the free)."

Stay with me here, for the exciting conclusion....

As my prior rebuttal to one of your other red herring arguments suggests, any beating is intentional. Beatings do not happen by accident. If a free person beats another free person, God orders (civil/criminal punishment) to the one committing battery and/or compensation to the victim.

HOWEVER, if a slave is beaten by his/her slave master, and recovers after a couple of days, God orders no criminal/civil charges against the master, and God orders NO compensation for the slave.

This specific LAW is ordered by none other than God, who I trust we would agree, is above government law.

So please "JW", try and stop distracting your interlocutors with these hair-splitting side arguments.

[TRANSPONDER]

I know I said I was done. But since I'm sure others are reading these exchanges, I thought I would dissect another one of your assertions, so the Christian readers can see how NOT to argue for Biblical slavery. It's kind of a long response, but demonstrates how you continue to try and distract the interlocutor away from the more obvious points about Biblical slavery, (that make Christians uncomfortable)

My argument, which was kind of addressed above, is that differing laws exist between (the enslaved VS the free).

You are wrong: different RULES one LAW

Again, with yet another red herring. No problem, we all expect this from you by now. And sure, I'll chase it again...

So sure, let's explore the difference between a rule verses a law -- (why not ):

Rules vs Laws

The main difference between rules and laws is the consequences associated with breaking them. While each is developed to invoke a sense of order, fair play, and safety, the weight of a law is much heavier than the weight of a rule.

Laws are like the legal version of rules. When you are a child, a parent sets rules to be followed. When you are in a society, the government sets laws to be followed. When a rule is broken, the consequences tend to be uncomfortable but mild in comparison to the breaking of a law.

Laws are enforced by a higher governmental office, usually the police and the prosecutor’s office. Laws are written in specific code so that they can be interpreted as needed. When you break a law there is legal action that follows, provided that you are caught.

Rules are more flexible and carry low end consequences. You can set up rules for games, rules for the home, even rules for fighting or being intimate with a partner. Rules are personal in nature, and they are often adjusted as the conditions and circumstances of the home change.

Laws must be passed through due process in order to take effect. A law starts off as a bill, and must go through a series of checks, balances, and votes in order to become a law. Rules are merely set and adjusted as the need arises, and should be followed out of respect for those setting the rules.

Read more: Difference Between Rules and Laws | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... z7UaQsVnZe

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

Thus, if we explore the distinction above, we simply replace government with God, and viola.

Now, let's ask God. Is battery against the law? I trust we agree it is against God's law.

Definition: A battery occurs when one “causes bodily harm" to a person.[/i]" - google

Okay, now let's go back to my prior statement:

"My prior argument == differing laws exist between (the enslaved VS the free)."

Stay with me here, for the exciting conclusion....

As my prior rebuttal to one of your other red herring arguments suggests, any beating is intentional. Beatings do not happen by accident. If a free person beats another free person, God orders (civil/criminal punishment) to the one committing battery and/or compensation to the victim.

HOWEVER, if a slave is beaten by his/her slave master, and recovers after a couple of days, God orders no criminal/civil charges against the master, and God orders NO compensation for the slave.

This specific LAW is ordered by none other than God, who I trust we would agree, is above government law.

So please "JW", try and stop distracting your interlocutors with these hair-splitting side arguments.

Excellent work. Of course pettifogging over nuances is just the usual Lawyer tricks of Bible apologetics to try to make Black White. Similar to trying to argue that Slavery in the bible isn't slavery at all. Fortunately for saving debate, it clearly is. The argument that Jesus abrogated all the OT Except what is nailed to a courthouse wall is a trickier argument, and Tam gave me a tough bout about that . Dickering about Rules and laws seems doomed to fail because, call it Rules or Laws, and not Commandments, the Bible is clear. It is not wrong to own foreign people as chattel slaves for life, and no punishment is incurred if they don't die from a beating in a couple of days. The Fiddling that our pal JW engages in is clear from the strawman of pretending that we (Biblecritics) claim that the Bible urges beatings of slaves or how to do it. That clearly isn't the argument; it is that the Bible does not command or even urge the abolition of slavery which is a gross dereliction of moral duty for a God that is moral (supposedly) and knows (1) how human morality will see that it is wrong.

This isn't saying that God is actually immoral; it is saying that it is yet another reason to think that God doesn't exist and the Bible was written by men of the time, and that all it was written by.

(1) though some have essayed the 'God does not actually know what is going to happen' defence which actually makes sense of a lot of Bible puzzles (clearly Jesus apparently does Not know some things) but opens up a can of theological worms, and some have even tried God concealing things from Himself. .

[JehovahsWitness]

Rules vs Laws

The main difference between rules and laws is the consequences associated with breaking them.

An irrelevant tangent since I made it clear I was not refering to individual laws OR rules.

... there was "one law" as in a single penal code by which all citizens should abide

HOW COULD THE BIBLE SPEAK OF THERE BEING ONE LAW WHEN THERE WERE DEMONSTRATABLY HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT LAWS IN HEBREW SCRIPTURE?

NUMBERS 15:16
16 There should be one law and one judicial decision for you and for the foreigner who is residing with you.’

LEVITICUS 24:22

You are to have the same standard of law for the foreign resident and the native; for I am the LORD your God.'"

RELATED POSTS

Was there really "one law" (one standard of law) for all people that lived in ancient Israel?
viewtopic.php?p=1079612#p1079612

How could the bible speak about "One Law" when there were demonstratably hundreds of laws, rules and directives in ancient Israel ?
viewtopic.php?p=1079703#p1079703

How can there be one LAW if different rules or laws are applicable to different people?
viewtopic.php?p=1079662#p1079662

Did the principle of loving one's neighbour exclude foreign slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078723#p1078723

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

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[POI]

An irrelevant tangent....

... started the second you placed the argument in place (to decipher the difference between laws and rules), in an attempt to throw off the scent of the obvious. I chased it, and answered it, and now you wish to continue having me chase you. But guess what, even if you were right, which you clearly are not, it would not matter if we are speaking about laws, rules, special concessions, caveats, or what-have-you.

If a slave is beaten by his/her slave master, and recovers after a couple of days, God orders no criminal/civil charges against the master, and God orders NO compensation for the slave. He spoke on this specific matter, and gave his "rule", "law", "assessment", "opinion", "judgement", other (fill-in-the-blank).

So continue to dig a hole for yourself here, if you wish...

[TRANSPONDER]

What has that got to do with slavery? The rules (whether laws or not) make it clear that Hebrews can own foreigners as chattel -slaves for life and can whup em and won't be punished if they din't die for a couple of days. It is a red herring to talk about foreigners living in your community having the same rights. It is irrelevant to the question of slavery.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

[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





RELATED POSTS

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

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 it's OK to beat a slave ?
viewtopic.php?p=1078758#p1078758

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

Does the Hebrew bible allow for slave beating ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p764027

[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

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

Isn't slavery automatically abusive and thus morally objectionable?
viewtopic.php?p=1080087#p1080087

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

Could the "Law of Love" found at Leviticus 19:18b, co-exist in a system that allows for lifelong slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1079905#p1079905

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

SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING

[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. You cannot try to argue that because Hebrews did not enslave Africans (generally) it was not chattel slavery. Or an equivalent at any rate.

[TRANSPONDER]

chattel slavery noun
Definition of chattel slavery
: slavery in which a person is owned as a chattel (see CHATTEL sense 2)
Other Words from chattel slavery
chattel slave noun, plural chattel slaves
First Known Use of chattel slavery
1837, in the meaning defined above


Merriam- Webster.

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