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]

(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.

Well, I never said the slave master is trying to kill the slave. But the master may want to beat the slave for (not being productive enough, saying they are sick, talking back, etc etc etc). As long as they remain within the 'God prescribed' limitations, no punishment.

As I told another. Paul states:

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

Thus, what is the master to do, if the master deems that his money/property/slave/servant isn't up to his standards? Well, since no punishment is commanded by god, unless they almost die, there you go...

One can imagine the slave owner had no problem reading select 'slavery' Verses to their slaves, to keep them from trying to escape, and/or not working their a$$es off 16 hours a day, 6 days a week.... And still, if the master should decide to keep his slave(s) in line, a beating was not punishable by god's standard anyways.

[POI]

- 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).

Incorrect. Exodus 21 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, notice God makes a special caveat for the slave:

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.

If ANY type of 'punishment' was due, God demonstrates to have 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.

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.

Right. So as I stated prior, humans think beating slaves is wrong, and would seek 'justice'. God, however, apparently does not

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 .

See my response directly above.

Also, the 'golden rule', as we agree, was already in place in Lev. 19:18. But like I've been saying, differing rules exist between the (free vs slave). Otherwise, it makes little sense to also instruct to make others slaves for life, and as property ---- as already noted in Lev. 25:44-46.

[POI]

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

I'm pretty sure I already addressed such points... Care to provide the post number of your response? We are almost 150 posts deep and it's becoming hard to keep track. I will then find the corresponding answer(s) given.

And the other question I asked re: golden rule?

Pretty sure I responded here too. Post number please?

[tam]

Peace to you,

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

I'm pretty sure I already addressed such points... Care to provide the post number of your response? We are almost 150 posts deep and it's becoming hard to keep track. I will then find the corresponding answer(s) given.

Post 80.

And the other question I asked re: golden rule?

Pretty sure I responded here too. Post number please?

Post 111 quotes it:

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

I am asking YOU.

The following has not been answered yet either (since I clarified it), post 117:

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.



Peace again.

[POI]

I hope all are enjoying the Christian interaction(s) thus far. I feel it's now time to provide the objective of this topic.

It applies to Occam's Razor or the principle or parsimony. The simplest explanation, or the one with the least amount of additional necessary assumptions, tends to be the best one. Is this always the case? Well, no... However, where 'Bible slavery' is concerned, if the given answer is.... "Ancient humans wrote this stuff, and nothing more", then the rest quickly falls into place and/or answers itself.

To instead believe God had a hand in any of this topic, looks to require mental gymnastics, hoop jumping, rationalization, 'apologetics', and the like. Additional assumptions are required.

[POI]

Peace to you,

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

I'm pretty sure I already addressed such points... Care to provide the post number of your response? We are almost 150 posts deep and it's becoming hard to keep track. I will then find the corresponding answer(s) given.

Post 80.

This is what you wrote:

these quotes are from Paul, not Christ. Paul was probably speaking from love, trying to keep people safe - not just from those who owned them, but also from the authorities and law of the land. Paul did think it best if people had their freedom, and he protected a (runaway?) slave for a time, and when he had to send that slave back, he made it pretty hard for that owner to justify keeping the man as a slave. [/quote]

Sounds like your position is that Paul wrote what he thought 'authority' would want to hear?

And the other question I asked re: golden rule?

Pretty sure I responded here too. Post number please?

Post 111 quotes it:

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

I am asking YOU.

My answer is no. I would not consider owning slaves; and I do not even believe in a postmortem Jesus

The golden rule is nothing new, and is basic common sense. This rule was floating around long before "Jesus".

A matter of fact, it was instructed in Lev. 19:18. And in the very same Book (Leviticus), chattel slavery was ALSO instructed, via Leviticus 25:44-46. So what is your point exactly?

The following has not been answered yet either (since I clarified it), post 117:

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.

Post 119:

If a true believer would not have slaves, then why have passages which places believers as slave masters? Nowhere does the passage state for believers to not own (slaves)?

6 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)

[Wootah]

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....?

Come to Me, and I Will Give You Rest

25 hAt that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, iLord of heaven and earth, that jyou have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and krevealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your lgracious will.7 27 mAll things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son nexcept the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone oto whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 pCome to qme, all who labor and are rheavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and slearn from me, for I am tgentle and lowly in heart, and uyou will find rest for your souls. 30 For vmy yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Jesus says his yoke is lightest, not that there is no yoke.

My view is that we are all slaves: to nature, to our bodies, to physics, to other peoples, to our families. It is endless and pretending to not be a slave is illusory. If we recognise that then we can better choose what to be a slave to. As a Christian, I claim to be a slave to Christ and so as my master washed the feet of his disciples then I know what standard God expects of me as his Slave. No slave is greater than his master. It's when we all become slaves of each other, loving God and loving others as we love ourselves, that we will all be most free.

* all matter is a slave to causality btw, so unless you believe in free will, any views on slavery is moot.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is just playing with words. You can say that we are slaves to our need to eat, gravity and being unable to fly. But that does not alter the fact that Chattel slavery - owning another person as property - is something we all know is different from being subject to environmental conditions, and we know it's wrong and God, Jesus and Paul know at least that people don't want to be another's property, and yet they never say that slavery is wrong, not even as a principle, let alone as an exhortation.

This is just one more clue that we are dealing with the opinions of men of the time, not the opinions of any divine, or even particularly wise or ethical beings. The Bible is the Book of religious myths, for this and many other reasons. You seem unable to find reasons that would persuade we skeptics otherwise on the present showing, even if you prefer to practice semantic legerdemain rather than face facts.

[POI]

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....?

Come to Me, and I Will Give You Rest

25 hAt that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, iLord of heaven and earth, that jyou have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and krevealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your lgracious will.7 27 mAll things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son nexcept the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone oto whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 pCome to qme, all who labor and are rheavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and slearn from me, for I am tgentle and lowly in heart, and uyou will find rest for your souls. 30 For vmy yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Jesus says his yoke is lightest, not that there is no yoke.

My view is that we are all slaves: to nature, to our bodies, to physics, to other peoples, to our families. It is endless and pretending to not be a slave is illusory. If we recognise that then we can better choose what to be a slave to. As a Christian, I claim to be a slave to Christ and so as my master washed the feet of his disciples then I know what standard God expects of me as his Slave. No slave is greater than his master. It's when we all become slaves of each other, loving God and loving others as we love ourselves, that we will all be most free.

* all matter is a slave to causality btw, so unless you believe in free will, any views on slavery is moot.

This type of response has already been addressed, ad nauseam. To save your search, I will give you a brief recap...

In the matter of Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:20-21, you are defined as a very specific type of "slave". You are a "slave" to a human master. You are deemed property/money, for life.

So sure, we are all 'slaves' to something. But are all 'slaves' equal? I doubt it.... Here, again, is the pecking order, as established by the Bible:

God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slave

The "slave" is the lowest on the totem pole, or pecking order.

So I ask you now... If you were born into slavery, via Exodus 21:4, would you think your brand of 'slavery' equals that of the 'free male human Christian slave master' who owns you?

[POI]

This is just playing with words. You can say that we are slaves to our need to eat, gravity and being unable to fly. But that does not alter the fact that Chattel slavery - owning another person as property - is something we all know is different from being subject to environmental conditions, and we know it's wrong and God, Jesus and Paul know at least that people don't want to be another's property, and yet they never say that slavery is wrong, not even as a principle, let alone as an exhortation.

This is just one more clue that we are dealing with the opinions of men of the time, not the opinions of any divine, or even particularly wise or ethical beings. The Bible is the Book of religious myths, for this and many other reasons. You seem unable to find reasons that would persuade we skeptics otherwise on the present showing, even if you prefer to practice semantic legerdemain rather than face facts.

Thank you... Also see post 145