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.

[tam]

Peace to you,

(YOU) The bible is not 'it', but that is another topic. Even if the bible WAS it:

A - the bible records God as saying "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."... therefore the words of Christ should come first in that entire book.

B - the bible also records Christ as being the Truth (not the bible, but Christ)... therefore, again, listen to Christ (if indeed you want to know what is true).

C - the bible also records that the law has been mishandled (by the lying pen of the scribes, Jeremiah 8:8)... therefore, why put the law over Christ when it is Christ to whom God said to listen, and Christ who is the truth?

D - the bible (from what Christ is recorded to have said) also records that some laws were given NOT because they were true from the beginning, but as an allowance for the hard hearts of the people. Then Christ proceeded to correct the error. Please note we have this example because it is one law that the people specifically asked about. People did not come to Christ and ask about every matter in the law. You need to be able to use some reasoning of your own to come to a right decision. So AGAIN - why put the law - which could have had an error or could have been given as an allowance for a people who could do no better - over Christ?

(ME) A- As expressed in the Bible.

And so, even if you are listening to the bible (and no one does that, rather people listen to what they or others interpret from the bible)... you should be putting the words of Christ first.

B- As expressed in the Bible

As I said.

C - Scribes wrote the Verse you quoted.

How does that disprove my point?

D - Nowhere in the NT does it state that OT slavery was in error.

But it does state to listen to Christ and to follow Him.

Some people just can't see what that means though. Theist and non-theist alike.

(YOU) If "Christ" had a problem with anything which is contained within it's pages, which was later canonized, Jesus cared not to later have it 'rectified'.

The NT was not written until after His death and resurrection and ascension. How do you propose He have it rectified? Other than telling people to remain in Him and in His word?

(other than coming to Him for oneself, of course, and asking to know the truth of a matter)

(ME) Again, The 'Book', which contains 66 Chapters, written by 40 authors, and ultimately later canonized by the church, (depending on who you ask), is the complete collection of what 'God/Jesus' commanded.

Says who?

Jesus has not come back to from the dead,

Christ has.

and the Bible, as written, is still considered "law" by some.

Does 'some people consider something true' MAKE it true?

So until 'Christ' returns, this is what you are stuck 'defending' thus far.

I'm not stuck with it at all. It seems you are stuck with it (by your own decision). You asked a question about what a Christian should do. I responded as a Christian, and a Christian listens to and follows Christ.

(YOU) How can you enslave someone if you are meant to make YOURSELF the LEAST, to serve THEM? Just as Christ came to serve, making Himself least (even though He is the King of kings, heir to all God's kingdom).

IF you are a slave of Christ, of God, and a servant to others, who is left for you to enslave?

(ME) I (again) ask,

No. I answered your question. Now it is your turn to answer mine. Unless you know the answer will not support the position you have taken.

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

(ME) Again,

Nope. I have answered your questions. It is still your turn to answer mine.

(YOU) Well that is your own imaginings. That is not something Christ taught, and even Paul said that we are all equal in Christ (male, female, Jew, Gentile, free or slave**). This is the same thing that Christ taught: You have ONE Master, and you are all brothers.

Your chart should read: God>Christ>man (male, female, free, slave, Jew, Gentile)

(ME) But your chart is wrong:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Eph. 5:22-24

Ergo: God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slave.

A - you are adding on the slave part yourself.

B - Paul is speaking about Christ and the Church (verse 32 from what you are quoting). The Church is the Body/Bride of Christ (made of both men and women, all of whom have Christ as their Head). I asked my Lord about this, and He IS indeed my head.

That being said, out of love, yes (as a dear sister of mine shared some time back) the wife serves her husband... but so does the husband serve his wife... ESPECIALLY if each are Christian, because we are to serve one another.

C - Paul is the one who said (from Galatians 3) There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ [Jesus].

Sure, "we ALL bow down to God", but there exists a hierarchy. And 'slaves' are at the very bottom, right above animals...

That is your own opinion. Who says that in the bible you keep referencing as being 'it'?

(YOU) Are you suggesting Israel always got it right? Or that a temporary allowance might not have been made for them during that time?

(ME) I'm saying the golden rule was already in place when slavery was introduced.

(YOU) Could you answer my question?

(YOU) I have already responded to that, but lets turn the tables, shall we?

You are dismissing things I (and others) have shared, because it does not paint God in the light that you wish Him to be painted. You are unwilling to truly consider those things that would contradict your position.

(ME) Gaslighting. Not surprised.

So are you admitting that you were gaslighting me?



Peace again to you.

[POI]

Both you and Transponder keep sidestepping the point. And I don't know how to put it any clearer than Tam or I already have:

Slavery becomes servanthood. That is Christianity in a nutshell: everyone is meant to be a servant (/slave).

There certainly is some 'sidestepping' going on here. At best, your argument looks to be as follows:

God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slaves

Umm, no.

God>humankind is what I'm saying, where all humankind is in the image of God / Christ. Even Jesus is just a figurehead of the body of Christ (if you will) which we are all called to join, and which is much greater than Jesus (/one person) but all equally Christ. (As Paul eloquently describes somewhere.)

What you're saying here is the state of the world that the bible / Christian servanthood is trying to correct. It is a fitting description of a fallen world. Of our world today even in a lot of respects. (You could layer on things like plants and animals too in this model.)

Meaning - "Sure, we are all (slaves); except God of course."

What is God to even speak of God being enslaved or not? But sure, I get your drift.

But you still have to reconcile that the Bible defines a specific form of 'slavery' in the OT. The non-Israelite human slave is the human master's property, for which can be beaten with virtual impunity for life. Sure, you might be a 'slave' to something; like paying taxes, answering to your boss at work, or even God, but I doubt you are okay with the kind of (slavery) mentioned specifically in the OT. Hence, the (apologetics 101 spin) we now see from some Christians, to completely muddy the waters. For which, BTW, Jesus never cares to then abolish

Don't confuse the slavery spoken of in the law (whether chattel slavery or indentured servitude) with Christian servanthood. And I doubt anyone here is 'okay' with either of these or anything like it. Per above, that is part of a fallen world. Of pharaoh for example and Israel too. That is not what God or Christian servanthood wants or is in anyway condoning of. It has no place in the end game.

If the issue is the law, which I get, then you have to understand that the law too is in the context of a fallen world. That is the only reason it exists in the first place: to get Israel on track. Because like other nations Israel too keeps slaves and does other things we rightly abhor (like animal sacrifices and whatnot). There is a moral development going on here -- you have to recognize that (you can't just call it 'mental gymnastics' like you did before...).

The moral issue Jesus tries to correct (to put it another way) is that Israel became obsessive with the law, and saw it as the path to salvation. His point is, it is not. Hence why I am so dismissive of the law's condoning of slavery. It was in every sense of the word an incremental step and effort to move Israel in the right direction (i.e., to at least give rights to the slaves they insist on keeping). It too has no place in the end game (including its condoning of slavery).

Let me cut to the chase.... If God instructed that humans owning other humans was an abomination/wrong/other, like He apparently has no problem doing in many other given instructions, about MANY other topics, then I certainly would NOT be posting how Christians have to rationalize owning slaves.

But guess what? The OT provides a guide to slavery, via Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. You know it, I know it. Case/point... Let's play devil's advocate... The God, for which you believe in, exists. Okay, He issues Commandments. All-the-while, knowing they are all going to be broken anyways. And yet, He still issues them. However, when it comes to the topic of 'slavery', instead of simply issuing another 'thou shall not' Command, He offers a guide/instruction manual --- which includes virtual impunity for beating them, and also making them property for life.

How does this fare in the 'end game'?

[POI]

Paul is the one who said (from Galatians 3) There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ [Jesus].

Interesting... Now what Paul says actually matters? And yes, he did say that. But what he said there does nothing to upset or detour the established pecking order, which was also established by Paul (i.e.)

God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slave

Meaning, everyone under god is a 'servant' to Him. But a 'free man' servant is certainly not the same as a 'slave' servant. The 'slave' is much lower on the totem pole -- (with less rights).

And since you and 'theophile' seem to share the same ultimate ideas, please see what I wrote in post #112.

[POI]

IF you are a slave of Christ, of God, and a servant to others, who is left for you to enslave?

I already answered. I'll do it again. Stay with me here. --> God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slave

- The free man serves Jesus/God
- The slave serves the free man (and) Jesus/God

Like I have stated a few times now, there exists many differing types of 'slaves'. You want to change the name to 'servant'. But this does nothing to address what this topic is all about. The slavery I'm speaking about, is the kind in which you look to be trying to water down, quite frankly. So please stop.

The 'slave' I'm speaking about, is to serve their human masters. The NT (Paul) reinforces the (human master/human slave) topic. In doing so, not once does he state this is no longer a thing. Paul instead adds additional instruction. Jesus says nothing to undo Paul's teachings. Hence, as it stands, it's quite logical to think that God had it right from the jump....

Meaning, you may own slaves, as property, for life. If they do not die from their beatings/etc, no punishment to the slave master is warranted by God. If you are a slave, work as hard as you can for your human slave master. And if the slave master is a Christian, work even harder.

[1213]

Not at all because everyone has the choice not to participate in taxed activities. ...

In theory yes, but in practice it would mean that one would be banished from where he lives to some remote location without anything.[

Who, besides yourself, claims such a thing. IOW, what's your source of information that this happens to anyone who chooses "not to participate in taxed activities"?
...

If one is in society, he cannot avoid taxes, because they are in almost all aspects of life. For example, if I work, I have to pay, if I buy something, I have to pay taxes, if I live in a house, I have to pay taxes. Only way to avoid it is to move to some remote place and live without anything, which is probably not possible really.

So, one would NOT "be banished from where he lives to some remote location without anything," as you claimed?


.

In practice it would mean that, because if one would want to avoid taxes, he would have to move out of that society, because it is not possible to live there without paying taxes in some way.

[TRANSPONDER]

I can only reiterate that the claim that we are all 'servants' to Jesusgod in no way makes any difference to human ethics, which are supposedly written on our hearts by God. Either the state of slavery is wrong in which case being 'slaves' to God makes no odds, or slavery to God means that slavery (chattel slavery as apparently endorsed and approved in the Bible) is ok. In which case I'd say 'so much for Christian morals'.

But what does being 'slaves to God' mean? Does it mean whips? Does it mean we are not freely there?

No. It means that we commit. That we answer the call. That we step up, like Jesus did, and choose to take on the burden.

Whether you give your life to money, family, Nintendo or God is up to you. Everything we do is ultimately slavery to something, and slavery to God has nothing coerced or determined about it.

Well, you tell me It's a term put by a Christian apologist trying to argue that because we are all 'slaves to Giod' (whether or not we like it, I suppose) this negates slavery within human society and therefore Jesus doesn't need to say anything about it and Jesuslove apparently made slavery..non slavery even though it was still going on and accepted did until abolition was first enacted.

Peace to you!

I am not going to carry the whole thing down (since it is a lot), but just respond to your comments and refer back to the link if need be for my previous comments.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #103]

Of course you may respond and welcome.

Paul was of course a fallible man and I'd be the first to say that he made many mistakes. But the point is that he got (supposedly) all he knew about Jesus from the apostles and nowhere does he say other than a slave ought to serve their masters. No suggestion that Jesus had said that the old laws about slavery had been superseded. The rule (as I understand it) is if Jesus doesn't overrule it, it stands.

From whom/where did you learn that rule? How do you know that rule is correct?

Even going by this unknown/random rule, Christ overrules enslavement by His words and His example and even by His command that we are to make ourselves least, that we are to be servants of one another.

Paul saying that this slave should be released or another (as i recall) buy his freedom, only recognises that people don't like to be slaves; so not to say that Christians should not own slaves is 'without excuse' as he puts it.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here in the bold. Are you saying Paul claims Christians should own slaves, or those that do are without excuse (because they should not own slaves)?

That being said, if people (which would include oneself) don't like being slaves, then you should not make them slaves. That would violate the golden rule. By the same standard, if a person is/was a slave and wants their freedom, then you should set them free.

It is ingenuous to suggest that because we are slaves to God (or so some claim) nobody can be a slave. Of course they can. They were.

Have I argued otherwise?

All the time they were being taught Christianity, too. I can't imagine them doing that if there was any indication at all in the teachings that it was wrong.

But there IS indication in the teachings that it was wrong.

Regardless, can you truly not imagine them doing that if there was any indication at all in the teachings that it was wrong? What about judging, stoning, executions, persecuting others, inquisitions, calling for others to be cursed, calling for enemies to be killed? Christ directly commanded against these things (in word and in deed). Yet all these things have gone on over the last two thousand years, by those claiming to be Christian (please see Matt 7:21-23), and with EVERY indication from Christ (His word, His example) that these things are wrong.

Playing nice, as Jesus suggests, is no better than Leviticus which is just trying to be fair (according to their mores) in dealing with slaves. That does not mean in the NT that being nice automatically means that Christianity somehow abolished slavery, or taught that it should be abolished.

Christianity teaches all sorts of things, some of which is what Christ taught (how else to mislead people seeking truth), but much of which is not what He taught, even going AGAINST His word and example.

Perhaps you might consider doing the exercise that I suggested of POI in the last couple posts?

And my point about Jesus tough talking and causing a ruckus is not that Jesus owned slaves (come on that's a red herring) but that playing nice by your slaves does not rule out some tough love where it seems to be needed. never mind freeing them.

I mentioned something much more than just 'playing nice' (acting from love, from mercy, following Christ and the example He set for us). The fact that Christ did not enslave anyone is an important part of someone mimicking Him. In any case, I asked you for specifics on what would justify someone beating another person (slave or otherwise), as per Christ (His word and example).



Peace again to you,

Right...a lot of posts since this one, but let's have a bash at it... The New Covenant Rule has come out of reading many apologetics excuses. You know how it works...OT not ok, well it doesn't count anymore; Jesus made all things new. So the Commandments don't apply any more? Oh no. If he says they apply they apply. Thus the Rule comes down to No OT rules unless Jesus rubber stamps them. It isn't 'correct' because Jesus says not to bother about the Sabbath, but Christians swear by it. But we already know that Christians use a Bible in their heads, not the one printed on paper.

Even so, your assertion that Jesus by waving 'Love' about by implication abolished slavery so he didn't have to say so does not work. Slavery still existed and Jesus gave numerous explanations of right and wrong and did not rely on Love to carry it all without the need for explanatory notes. Ergo if he never mentioned slavery, even when it was in front of him it means he accepts it.

you posted: "Are you saying Paul claims Christians should own slaves, or those that do are without excuse (because they should not own slaves)?" I am saying that Paul recognised that people did not want to be slaves, so there is 'No Excuse' in (say) they did not know it was wrong. And yet Paul specifically supports slavery. Either the apostles also did, which means that Jesus did, or Paul got nothing from the disciples.

Have you argued otherwise? I thought you had in saying we are all slaves to Jesus. or maybe that was someone else. But if not then sure slavery existed before and after Jesus and the Bible, OT, NT and Paul did not condemn it ever, other than say how a God believer should treat his slaves or slaves should behave to the Christians that own them.

There is no indication that slavery was wrong. There is in Paul a recognition that slaves did not like to be slaves, and of course the OT as well, but that simply negates the excuse. Thus it is worse that nowhere does it say 'Do not own other people as property'. That the gospels condemn other stuff as wrong (Sabbath, Clean food, public praying) makes it worse that slavery is never even mentioned, even when a centurion says 'I have a slave who is sick..' Jesus heals the slave but never says to either the centurion or anyone else 'Hear me, that you should not own your fellow person'. Not a word. Silence gives assent.

That Christians do not follow the teachings shows how impractical they are and how Christianity has had to adapt the faith to suit themselves. And before I follow any exercise you might propose, how about you follow this one: Ask just why you insist on trying to excuse this issue instead of saying 'yeah...the Bible is not (contrary to what I tried to claim) condemning slavery. So why am I holding it up as something admirable?'

It is irrelevant that Jesus did not own slaves or beat them. He wasn't married, but that didn't stop him telling people about marriage and divorce. he had no money, but that didn't stop him telling others what to do with their money. He had no slaves, but that did not stop him from telling others they shouldn't own slaves...except, he never did. Get the point? Top and tail that with the OT putting slavery firmly in the 'Law' that did not pass away (unless he specifically overrode it as in the Sermon on the mount) and tail it with Paul, having converted to a creed he presumably now knew about said 'slaves, obey your masters'. I think that settles the matter and attempt to use 'Love' as a blanket denunciation of anything now considered to be bad, is simply whitewashing over the cracks and it may fool you, but it doesn't fool me.

[tam]

Peace to you,

IF you are a slave of Christ, of God, and a servant to others, who is left for you to enslave?

I already answered. I'll do it again. Stay with me here. --> God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slave

- The free man serves Jesus/God
- The slave serves the free man (and) Jesus/God

You didn't. You seem to be misunderstanding what I have said and asked.

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.

Like I have stated a few times now, there exists many differing types of 'slaves'. You want to change the name to 'servant'. But this does nothing to address what this topic is all about. The slavery I'm speaking about, is the kind in which you look to be trying to water down, quite frankly. So please stop.

I know exactly what you are speaking about, and that is what I have been addressing from the start. Perhaps the above will help in clarifying that.

The 'slave' I'm speaking about, is to serve their human masters.

Yep, I know. See above for clarification.



Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[POI]

Not at all because everyone has the choice not to participate in taxed activities. ...

In theory yes, but in practice it would mean that one would be banished from where he lives to some remote location without anything.[

Who, besides yourself, claims such a thing. IOW, what's your source of information that this happens to anyone who chooses "not to participate in taxed activities"?
...

If one is in society, he cannot avoid taxes, because they are in almost all aspects of life. For example, if I work, I have to pay, if I buy something, I have to pay taxes, if I live in a house, I have to pay taxes. Only way to avoid it is to move to some remote place and live without anything, which is probably not possible really.

So, one would NOT "be banished from where he lives to some remote location without anything," as you claimed?


.

In practice it would mean that, because if one would want to avoid taxes, he would have to move out of that society, because it is not possible to live there without paying taxes in some way.

Please stop issuing a red herring fallacy. (i.e.):

"This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first."

Let's place this lesser topic to bed. Both the rich and the poor are instructed to pay taxes, (in many societies), to assure certain expected living conditions are in place for the general society. We need roads, law enforcement, schools, etc etc etc... Can the system be corrupt? Maybe. But that is another topic. Thus, the society needs money to make these services happen for all in that society. Okay, cool.

Now let's get back the ACTUAL issue. When God weigh's in on 'slavery', God is not opposed. And by 'slavery', I mean chattel slavery. (i.e.):

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Lev. 25:44-46)

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. (Exodus 21:4)

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. (Exodus 21:7)

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

This means some are either born into slavery and/or are later placed there possibly against their will. They are deemed property of the human slave master for life.

They may also be beaten, with impunity; provided they do not die immediately or have their eyes/teeth removed:

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. (exodus 21:20-21)

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

However, what the Bible does NOT clarify, is what constitutes a justified beating.

So I ask you "1213"... How would you feel if you were born into 'slavery', or sold into 'slavery'? You are never to be freed. If your master beats you, and you did not die, oh well....

Say you are instructed to work 18 hour days, with no breaks, 6 days a week. The master sees you taking a break, or you become sick and state you must stop working that day. Your master beats you because you are not serving your Christian slave master in everything "wholeheartedly" (i.e.)

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. (Eph. 6:5-8)

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)

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

So PLEASE STOP trying to muddy the waters with "we are all servants". As "Miles" already alluded to prior... "A rose by any other name....".

So how would you feel if you were deemed a 'slave', by your slave master, for which God also approves?

[POI]

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.)

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)

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)

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't of course for a moment equate living (perforce, pretty much) in a society where I have to pay taxes equates to slavery to the extent that Biblical slavery is justified. Not to mention more recent slavery. There was always a distinction, in Bliblical times, in medieval times and in the Old South whether they did or did not not see themselves as cotton -pickers just because they paid taxes to the State. There was and is a difference and pointing to Laws that we have to follow does not either retcon, abolish or excuse chattel slavery, whatever the argument was intended to do.

Nor does all being slaves to God alter the fact (as I think POI said above) that Paul still knew what slavery was and this was still there even if they had become Christians. He knew that slaves preferred to be free (Even Imperial Rome knew that) but he knew they were slaves and not only does his admonishment to obey their masters mean that he knew that being 'under God' did not make slavery somehow vanish, but he pretty much goes along with it.

Incidentally a thousand thanks for putting me past a thousand likes. That really means a lot to me . Subscribe and ring the bell, but please, don't pray for me.