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]

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.

I'm sure I've argued this before - the Christian view is (and if there is disagreement God should have known that and made it clear) that Jesus abrogated the Old laws unless he specifically supported them and made them even stricter (like divorce). So let's say that all the laws on slavery were overruled by 'Love', But it was still going on and Jesus never pointed out that it was wrong. He and God ought to have known this would be an issue later on and clarification and particular guidance was needed. No particular guidance was given but when he healed a slave without saying that people shouldn't own slaves, that was tacitly endorsing slavery. And Paul again says that slaves should obey their masters. It looks like Jesus is leaving the Law in place unless he revises it, rather. He revises eye for eye, father and mother, Sabbath observance, clean food. But supplants it by following him. The Centurion, if only for the benefit of the disciples. should have been told 'you should not own slaves' - if He and God knew that it was wrong. I think it won't do to just rely on new improved playnice to imply moral improvements even if not stated,

[POI]

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 te the entire post and the lead up (the two or three POSTS previous) so I can properly assess your allegations.

Seems like you have no true rebuttal. Or you would provide it. Thanks any ways.

[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 entire post and the lead up (the two or three POSTS previous) so I can properly assess your allegations.

Seems like you have no true rebuttal. Or you would provide it. Thanks any ways.

Rebuttals are not necessary for groundless claims. No need to thank me, it was my pleasure!



JW

[tam]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #181]

Did you see post 170? Just checking to make sure before I respond. I believe I missed a long post of yours some time back, but I think I address most everything.


Peace again.

[POI]

Rebuttals are not necessary for groundless claims.

LOL!

Your assessment, that 'punishment' only meant 'capital punishment', is wishful thinking. God has absolutely no problem ordering the specifics. See below:

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 for a beating, He would have said so. But He says the opposite. Further, 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.

Your only 'counter' here, is that there exists "punishment" if the slave dies. I never argued that the master wants or intends to kill the slave. The slave is his money, why would he remove his own property/money? Only that if the master should want to beat them, for whatever reason the master deems fit (poor performance, being sick, talking back, etc), that's perfectly fine. At least by God.

Thanks!

[JehovahsWitness]

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

ARGUMENTS FROM SILENCE: YOU DIDNT SAY I COULDN'T?

Arguments from silence make nonsense of the law for it presumes that the law covers every conceivable situation which is impossible. It also assumes that any silence can be taken as approval which is both dangerous and illogical.

To illustrate: If there is no specific law that says I must not run over my neighbours dog with a my Mercedes, can it be understood that it must be legal to do so. Can a defence be made that since the government has "no problem" with making OTHER laws or ascribing punishments , the lack of "running over my neighbour dog with my Mercedes" law implies it is legal to do so ?

In the real world legal precedents are established through the application of overriding principles and already existing laws, and this would scripturally have been the case for the Hebrews living under a code that had both principles and specifics.

Since there already existed a mandate to love one's neighbour and punitive laws for criminal damage of anyone's person, it would be legally been understood physically abusing a slave in any way was illegal without the specific law ("thou shall not beat thy slave" ) being stipulated

.

In any case the legal basis was there for charges to be made and for the local ("civil") elders to judge an abusive slaveowner.




JW





ARGUMENTS FROM SILENCE

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

Can an argument from silence be made or slavebeaters?
viewtopic.php?p=1079578#p1079578

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

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

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[POI]

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

ARGUMENTS FROM SILENCE

Arguments from silence make nonsense of the law for it presumes that the law covers every conceivable situation which is impossible. It also assumes that any silence can be taken as approval which is both dangerous and illogical.

To illustrate: If there is no specific law that says I must not run over my neighbours dog with a my Mercedes, can it be understood that it must be legal to do so. Can a defence be made that since the government has "no problem" with making laws or ascribing punishments , the lack of "running over my neighbour dog with my Mercedes" law implies it is legal to do so ?

In the real world legal precedents are established through the application of overriding principles and already existing laws, and this would scripturally have been the case for the Hebrews living under a code that had both principles and specifics.

I covered this early. A matter of fact, it was in my initial question for debate, post #1:

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....?

If the Bible was silent on the topic of "slavery". Sure, I'm right there with you

[JehovahsWitness]

I covered this early. A matter of fact, it was in my initial question for debate, post #1:

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....?

...

Yes and I have answered the OP and addressed the argument from silence you subsequently have made. See directly above.

JW

[POI]

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

ARGUMENTS FROM SILENCE

Arguments from silence make nonsense of the law for it presumes that the law covers every conceivable situation which is impossible. It also assumes that any silence can be taken as approval which is both dangerous and illogical.

To illustrate: If there is no specific law that says I must not run over my neighbours dog with a my Mercedes, can it be understood that it must be legal to do so. Can a defence be made that since the government has "no problem" with making laws or ascribing punishments , the lack of "running over my neighbour dog with my Mercedes" law implies it is legal to do so ?

In the real world legal precedents are established through the application of overriding principles and already existing laws, and this would scripturally have been the case for the Hebrews living under a code that had both principles and specifics.

I covered this early. A matter of fact, it was in my initial question for debate, post #1:

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....?

...

Yes and I have answered that question.

JW

Okay? Did I respond to it?

[JehovahsWitness]

Okay? Did I respond to it?

If you don't know I can't really help you. May I suggest if you are not sure you read back over your posts.

JW