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]

.. But ruffing them up, for not working to the max, is perfectly fine, apparently.

DOES THE HEBREW BIBLE INDICATES THATS "RUFFING [A SLAVE ] UP WAS {QUOTE } "PERFECTLY FINE" {END QUOTE}?

This is just repeatjng the same point but using a synonym (ruff up) for "beating". Since no new point is raised the previous post on this point apply (see below)

For more detailed analysis please see post #43 and post #50

[JehovahsWitness]

Seems He instructs that punishment is only to be issued in the result of immediate death, or missing eyes/teeth.

This point has been addressed and explained several times.




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

[JehovahsWitness]

..., 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.

This point has already been addressed.


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

[JehovahsWitness]

If God specifically assigns no punishment, then this means God is not against it....

This point has been addressed .... HERE

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

And here ....


Does the bible indicate how God would have felt about slaveowners beatings their slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078599#p1078599

[JehovahsWitness]

(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 ... In God's eyes, there was no intent to actually kill them. (logic)...

Yes, thats exactly the point. It is unlikely that a Master would intentionally kill his own slave so any death , especially after lingering for some days, would likely be unintentional, thus the death penalty would be mitigated.

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

LOVE & SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... ABOLITION

[JehovahsWitness]

- God instructs no punishment for merely beating them.

The context and language indicates God did not instruct no punishment , he instructed no punishment of death be imposed. (See my earlier post for a more detailed analysis).
viewtopic.php?p=1078563#p1078563

And yet, society might punish the master?

No actions exists in a vaccume; there are always consequences for one's actions, societial repurcussions for unacceptable behaviours often take up where the law does not or cannot go. In short, not all punishments are legislative.

So society has more empathy, or a need for "justice", than God?

I see no reason for such a conclusion. It was illegal to treat anyone in an unloving way in Israel so it was, in part God's word that molded the society to be as empathetic as it was (or should have been if they adhereed to the word). Given the law to "love their neighour", the local elders had every legal right to intervene if someone habitually walked down the street kicking their slave and certainly if whippings or other severe beatings were witnessed. but convicting someone of abuse when no proof of abuse can be presented is not just. Misplaced empathy that leads to a presumption of guilt for slaveowners is also not just. So the law was not inferior but complementary to societial repurcussions .





RELATED POSTS

Since God did not impose the death penalty for unintentional manslaughterdid that not make him less just than society?
viewtopic.php?p=1079324#p1079324

What is God's attitude to present human systems of slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=368781#p36878

Why didnt Jesus simply abolish slavery practices?
viewtopic.php?p=1078415#p1078415

Why does Christian scripture not call for the abolition of Slavery? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1020929#p1020929

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

SLAVERY, CHILD ABUSE and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[Miles]

Rather than abolishing slavery he would transform it into servanthood.

And a rose by any other name . . . .


.

No. The slavery you're talking about and the servanthood that Jesus showed us and called us to are not the same thing. There's no whips or abrogation of freedom in Christian servanthood.

Sorry, but you already said that slavery was not done away with; abolished, "Rather than abolishing slavery he would transform it into servanthood." Meaning that the only thing left to be transformed would be what it was called.


And a rose by any other name . . . .


.

[tam]

Peace to you,

The 'free man' is to serve ALL OTHER PEOPLE. The 'free man' is to make himself a LEAST ONE among MEN. (it is a given that the free man is lesser than God and Christ, but Christ said that we are to make ourselves LEAST, be slaves to OTHERS).

If the free man (who is a slave of Christ and God) is to make himself LEAST among men and to serve all other people, WHO is left for him to enslave? He is SERVANT to all.

So when Paul states, what he states below, was he CONFUSED? (i.e.)

I already responded about Paul. You dismissed that response as 'apologetics 101'. Didn't even bother to discuss it.

So..... are you going to answer the question now? And the other question I asked re: golden rule? Maybe someone else wants to give it a shot?


Peace again to you.

[POI]

.. But ruffing them up, for not working to the max, is perfectly fine, apparently.

DOES THE HEBREW BIBLE INDICATES THATS "RUFFING [A SLAVE ] UP WAS {QUOTE } "PERFECTLY FINE" {END QUOTE}?

Yes.

No punishment, unless they die immediately or loose teeth/eyes.

[POI]

Seems He instructs that punishment is only to be issued in the result of immediate death, or missing eyes/teeth.

This point has been addressed and explained several times.

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

You keep sending links, as if I'm going to then play "where Waldo' to see if I can find the actual rebuttal. Please stop that. What part of the link "negates" my observation that no punishment is instructed by God if they don't die immediately or loose eyes/teeth?