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]

That said, we need to not have institutional slavery. Whether the Hebrews abused their slaves or not, equality is the desirable condition.

Possibly, but is allowing that which is less than "the desirable condition" morally reprehensible or even always inadvisable?

Being able bodied is generally considered "the desirable condition" , so... what should we do about the physically handicapped? Arguably, from a physchological point of view, being raised by two loving parents is "the desirable condition" for children , yet most societies allow for divorce.

As I have pointed out, on a spiritual level, the Hebrew system recognised that all humans have certain inalienable god-given rights and as such were all equal in the eyes of God. That fact could coexist with allowing (for good reason) institutional slavery because the right to be free from all authority, was NOT (and is not) one of those rights. Ideally slavery itself would not have been necessary but I would no more call it a necessary "evil" than are facilitiies for physically handicapped.


JW

You may fool yourself, but you don't fool us. You cannot pretend that what is absolutely the rules for chattel slavery amongst the Hebrews was not slavery because of a blanket 'play nice' ethos of the religion. They didn't play nice with their enemies, why should they play nice with foreign slaves? Your effort to wriggle, bamboozle and evade in previous posts have earned you no credit, so why would you think that reiterating your crafty denialism here will fool anybody?

No. This is not personal (1). This is not an Attack. This is as related to the argument as pointing up a logical fallacy. This is about my (our) duty as we see it to clarify error to anyone reading it, as well as concern for you as a person, who have been bamboozled into denial, irrationality and fiddling by your religion.

(1) such accusations are always handy to be used at need. I've seen it done on the Forum.

[Purple Knight]

That said, we need to not have institutional slavery. Whether the Hebrews abused their slaves or not, equality is the desirable condition.

Possibly, but is allowing that which is less than "the desirable condition" morally reprehensible or even always inadvisable?

My answer is no, if put to a yes or no. This is mainly because the perfect really can become the enemy of the good. And I'm going to give the past some leeway (but not infinite leeway) when it comes to pursuing the desirable condition because of their limitations in understanding and technology. But I am against Kosher/Halal butchering in the present (though not in the past) and if you give everyone a replicator I'll be against eating meat (though I'm not against it now).

I do think we should (not a strict moral obligation) try to pursue the desirable condition but as you'll see my opinion is not a popular one.

Being able bodied is generally considered "the desirable condition" , so... what should we do about the physically handicapped?

Eugenics. This solves probably 90% of being handicapped and we can probably use technology to solve the other 10%. Technology, and, you know, not poisoning people with thalidomide because the company that sold it wants to make money.

Arguably, from a physchological point of view, being raised by two loving parents is "the desirable condition" for children , yet most societies allow for divorce.

If you can't put your kid first, don't have one. Allow children of divorcees to sue their parents. Ex-wives have long used husbands who divorce them as cash-cows, so why not? The parents might not see it this way but I do: They both just ran out on the child - on the family that child depends on. So let the kid milk them. If there's disposable income it should go to the kid's wants, rather than Miss Pamper-Me's designer shoes or Mr. She's-Not-Hot-Anymore's sports car.

Either way, even if the solutions are there, I can't derive a strict moral obligation to pursue them because that might involve knocking over anything and everything else in the process which defeats the purpose if it causes more suffering.

The deeper issue here is when it becomes negligence and immoral not to act, when you can. Obviously you can't ignore a drowning child because your shoes might get dirty, so I think it does at some point. But I could not tell you what that point is.

As I have pointed out, on a spiritual level, the Hebrew system recognised that all humans have certain inalienable god-given rights and as such were all equal in the eyes of God. That fact could coexist with allowing (for good reason) institutional slavery because the right to be free from all authority, was NOT (and is not) one of those rights. Ideally slavery itself would not have been necessary but I would no more call it a necessary "evil" than are facilities for physically handicapped.

I'm in agreement. However I admit I may be desensitised to an unacceptable degree because I have seen some seriously horrifying abuses from employers who abuse employees that have nowhere else to turn, and our society calls this working-as-intended. And if they want me to call all slavery wrong, and that right, then I will have to see some abuse actually done to the person because they are called a slave that cannot be done to the one that is called an employee. Yes the employee can quit but if he knows he will die I don't see the difference.

[Purple Knight]

You may fool yourself, but you don't fool us. You cannot pretend that what is absolutely the rules for chattel slavery amongst the Hebrews was not slavery because of a blanket 'play nice' ethos of the religion.

No, it probably wasn't. I well imagine that especially those taken in battle who were not Jews were very mistreated, including women.

But we need some sort of measuring stick. If you're going to assign a failing grade we need to know what's a passing one.

Do we pretend we have a passing grade now, in America? Where people are shipped from overseas to be sex slaves and there's an ad in the women's bathroom saying call this number if you were human trafficked and need help? (A woman showed it to me.)

No, this is not technically legal but it happens. And there were rules about what the Hebrews could and couldn't do with their slaves too. Yes I'm sure they got broken. But so do we also break our laws. So where's the measuring stick?

[POI]

But we need some sort of measuring stick. If you're going to assign a failing grade we need to know what's a passing one.

Before one assigns a 'measuring stick', it may first be prudent to figure out if (slavery is)...

A) good
B) bad
C) good/bad if....

-- If A), then the Bible is A-okay
-- If B), then the Bible is mistaken by not merely condemning all slavery, (or) never mentioning slavery - (for which the Bible reader would then just assume that the Bible is not okay with slavery at all)
-- If C), what is acceptable forms of slavery? And does the Bible provide clear instruction(s) about it's acceptable boundaries for the 'good kind of slavery'?

Then ask, what IS actually 'good'?

Do we pretend we have a passing grade now, in America?

Well, current American law condemns slavery. The Bible does not.

Yes I'm sure they got broken. But so do we also break our laws. So where's the measuring stick?

If the Bible condemned slavery, then any believer could point out, with EASE, that such a person in possession of a slave is in direct violation of God's law. But they can't. Hence, the problem?.?.?

[TRANSPONDER]

You may fool yourself, but you don't fool us. You cannot pretend that what is absolutely the rules for chattel slavery amongst the Hebrews was not slavery because of a blanket 'play nice' ethos of the religion.

No, it probably wasn't. I well imagine that especially those taken in battle who were not Jews were very mistreated, including women.

But we need some sort of measuring stick. If you're going to assign a failing grade we need to know what's a passing one.

Do we pretend we have a passing grade now, in America? Where people are shipped from overseas to be sex slaves and there's an ad in the women's bathroom saying call this number if you were human trafficked and need help? (A woman showed it to me.)

No, this is not technically legal but it happens. And there were rules about what the Hebrews could and couldn't do with their slaves too. Yes I'm sure they got broken. But so do we also break our laws. So where's the measuring stick?

Nobody says it's perfect, but even since slavery was begun to be abolished through the 18 th c. that was better than what had gone before - including the Bible which (as argued) condoned slavery. I won't get into why treating all sex work as 'trafficking' is human rights violations, but the world still has to make some ethical progress on the matter, but will observe that calling something illegal does not mean that it is all bad, when some of it may be ok and others not (1) and that pointing to abuses today does not exuse an institutionalised abuse (like slavery) in the past, even aside that the word of God condones and even approves it. Nor does it make any difference to the basic wrong of slavery (ownership of a person as property) even if you pamper them, never mind having rules about how far you can bludgeon them before you have the pay the Priests a shekel. That is irrelevant to the current morality that chattel slavery is wrong and the Bible knows it (it knows that slaves want to be free). So it is without excuse.

So yes, modern ethics, short of perfect though it is, can show God's word the way home by a long way. That's why it is not a reliable guide to Life, never mind about it being factually wrong.

(1) e.g growing and selling cannabis, as distinct from a drugs cartel that acts like a criminal paramilitary. The other side of the coin is that car driving is not criminal just because some people do traffic violations.

[Purple Knight]

pointing to abuses today does not excuse an institutionalised abuse (like slavery) in the past, even aside that the word of God condones and even approves it

It doesn't excuse it at all. But we need a measuring stick to declare a random stick too short. If all sticks are too short then calling a stick too short is meaningless. Too short is part of the condition of being a stick at that point. We at least need to know what a stick would look like that was long enough.

Nor does it make any difference to the basic wrong of slavery (ownership of a person as property) even if you pamper them, never mind having rules about how far you can bludgeon them before you have the pay the Priests a shekel.

This is where we disagree. If I call the Queen of England my slave, if I say I own her, what wrong is that? I've not done a thing to her. I have no problem calling it wrong to beat your unpaid involuntary interns at all. My problem is where we've divorced what is right and wrong to do to another person, completely away from that person and what is done to them. We've made it about what we call the act on paper. By the logic that the wrong is about what we call the act, we can bludgeon our employees, call it something besides beating, and make it morally permissible.

So yes, modern ethics, short of perfect though it is, can show God's word the way home by a long way. That's why it is not a reliable guide to Life, never mind about it being factually wrong.

I'm not arguing that the Bible is morally correct. I don't think it is. But I have to take the religioso side here because I don't think anyone can point out to me what is actually wrong with slavery in detail without resorting to "calling something slavery on paper is what's wrong with it" and while keeping their response within the bounds of what is wrong because there are actual acts being done to that person that ought not be done to a person.

You actually did make a good start though: Beating. It's wrong to beat a person. I agree. Now let's get rid of institutionalised cage matches and ultimate fighting because one fellow almost always ends up taking a beating. Now if you say, no, it's okay, that was voluntary, then anyone who sold themselves into slavery agreed to it too! And more than that it covers people who only agree because they've been put in a situation where they'll starve otherwise.

But we need some sort of measuring stick. If you're going to assign a failing grade we need to know what's a passing one.

Before one assigns a 'measuring stick', it may first be prudent to figure out if (slavery is)...

A) good
B) bad
C) good/bad if....

-- If A), then the Bible is A-okay
-- If B), then the Bible is mistaken by not merely condemning all slavery, (or) never mentioning slavery - (for which the Bible reader would then just assume that the Bible is not okay with slavery at all)
-- If C), what is acceptable forms of slavery? And does the Bible provide clear instruction(s) about it's acceptable boundaries for the 'good kind of slavery'?

Then ask, what IS actually 'good'?

I think it matters what you do to the person, not what you call the act. So it's C. If you call it slavery but let the person leave, pay them fairly, and they're happy and healthy, then there's no problem. But if you abuse them, exploit them, they toil and only ever enrich you and not themselves, that's bad whether you call it slavery or not.

Do we pretend we have a passing grade now, in America?

Well, current American law condemns slavery. The Bible does not.

Current American law condemns the legal act of owning a person. But if people are forced to toil for room and board, living paycheck to paycheck, don't you think that's just as bad?
(Obviously slavery being along racial lines is worse but that's part of the point I'm trying to make.)

Yes I'm sure they got broken. But so do we also break our laws. So where's the measuring stick?

If the Bible condemned slavery, then any believer could point out, with EASE, that such a person in possession of a slave is in direct violation of God's law. But they can't. Hence, the problem?.?.?

We have the same problem: We've reclassified the legality, changed the definitions, so people still suffer and we can't condemn it because it's not technically slavery.

[POI]

I think it matters what you do to the person, not what you call the act. So it's C. If you call it slavery but let the person leave, pay them fairly, and they're happy and healthy, then there's no problem. But if you abuse them, exploit them, they toil and only ever enrich you and not themselves, that's bad whether you call it slavery or not.

So you disagree with what the Bible states about the topic of '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)

Current American law condemns the legal act of owning a person. But if people are forced to toil for room and board, living paycheck to paycheck, don't you think that's just as bad?

So the best solution is to own them as property, for life? The best solution is to exempt the slave owner from any punishment for a slave beating, provided the slave owner does not kill them or knock out eyes/teeth -- (via Exodus 21)?

(Obviously slavery being along racial lines is worse but that's part of the point I'm trying to make.)

So we can again rule out the Bible, as being the right solution -- via Leviticus 25.

We have the same problem: We've reclassified the legality, changed the definitions, so people still suffer and we can't condemn it because it's not technically slavery.

I feel you might be wanting me to chase a red herring here... Sure, things are never 'perfect'. But if I were to give you a double-blind test, and you did not know which assertion came from who, (i.e.) A) 'God' or B) people, which one of the two would you select as being CLOSER to solving THE PROBLEM (A or B)?

A) 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

B) Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[TRANSPONDER]

Re: A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...
Post #366
Post by Purple Knight » Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:02 pm

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 3:26 pm
pointing to abuses today does not excuse an institutionalised abuse (like slavery) in the past, even aside that the word of God condones and even approves it.

It doesn't excuse it at all. But we need a measuring stick to declare a random stick too short. If all sticks are too short then calling a stick too short is meaningless. Too short is part of the condition of being a stick at that point. We at least need to know what a stick would look like that was long enough.

If I get you correctly, sure. We had some arguing that paying tax or having to be subject to living conditions is 'slavery'. Those sticks are far too short (or long) as we have a consensus of what slavery is. We know of working conditions and we legislate to ensure they don't become exploitative. But they can become slavery too, and we know what that is. It's the same with a penal system. We know when it becomes exploitative, and we know when it becomes slavery, And in fact genocidal camps, like under the Khmer Rouge, are worse even than that. We know which sticks are too long or short, and chattel slavery in the Bible is too far, even if a case can be made for Hebrew slaves as some kind of financial assistance package. Slavery of non Hebrews is chattel slavery. No rights (1), no freedom and no Out.

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 3:26 pm
Nor does it make any difference to the basic wrong of slavery (ownership of a person as property) even if you pamper them, never mind having rules about how far you can bludgeon them before you have the pay the Priests a shekel.

This is where we disagree. If I call the Queen of England my slave, if I say I own her, what wrong is that? I've not done a thing to her. I have no problem calling it wrong to beat your unpaid involuntary interns at all. My problem is where we've divorced what is right and wrong to do to another person, completely away from that person and what is done to them. We've made it about what we call the act on paper. By the logic that the wrong is about what we call the act, we can bludgeon our employees, call it something besides beating, and make it morally permissible.[/quote]
There's a world of difference between calling someone a slave (which at worst becomes hate- speech) and actually doing it. And I did the degree to which unacceptable working practises fall short of slavery, are slavery, or even go beyond slavery.

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 3:26 pm
So yes, modern ethics, short of perfect though it is, can show God's word the way home by a long way. That's why it is not a reliable guide to Life, never mind about it being factually wrong.

I'm not arguing that the Bible is morally correct. I don't think it is. But I have to take the religioso side here because I don't think anyone can point out to me what is actually wrong with slavery in detail without resorting to "calling something slavery on paper is what's wrong with it" and while keeping their response within the bounds of what is wrong because there are actual acts being done to that person that ought not be done to a person.

You actually did make a good start though: Beating. It's wrong to beat a person. I agree. Now let's get rid of institutionalised cage matches and ultimate fighting because one fellow almost always ends up taking a beating. Now if you say, no, it's okay, that was voluntary, then anyone who sold themselves into slavery agreed to it too! And more than that it covers people who only agree because they've been put in a situation where they'll starve otherwise.

It's long and short sticks again. One can call it 'indentured servitude'. Some apologists do. But the paper definition says that it isn't, because it is for life, and it is ownership of people as property, and the beating is not what actually makes for the slavery, though it's bad enough. But as I said, even if you treated slaves well, it is still ownership of persons as property and is wrong, and the Bible knows it's wrong, yet does not say so. It says 'Slaves, obey your masters, because God has appointed them masters over you'. Or some such. Which is simply saying that OT slavery rules are given a NT thumbs up.

(1) as I argued to our slavery apologist Jehovah's witness, the rule on beating slaves is probably seen as treating slaves ..not well, but not so badly that God is offended. It is still absolutely abuse of slaves, and even of Hebrew slaves.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think it matters what you do to the person, not what you call the act. So it's C. If you call it slavery but let the person leave, pay them fairly, and they're happy and healthy, then there's no problem. But if you abuse them, exploit them, they toil and only ever enrich you and not themselves, that's bad whether you call it slavery or not.

So you disagree with what the Bible states about the topic of '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)

Current American law condemns the legal act of owning a person. But if people are forced to toil for room and board, living paycheck to paycheck, don't you think that's just as bad?

So the best solution is to own them as property, for life? The best solution is to exempt the slave owner from any punishment for a slave beating, provided the slave owner does not kill them or knock out eyes/teeth -- (via Exodus 21)?

(Obviously slavery being along racial lines is worse but that's part of the point I'm trying to make.)

So we can again rule out the Bible, as being the right solution -- via Leviticus 25.

We have the same problem: We've reclassified the legality, changed the definitions, so people still suffer and we can't condemn it because it's not technically slavery.

I feel you might be wanting me to chase a red herring here... Sure, things are never 'perfect'. But if I were to give you a double-blind test, and you did not know which assertion came from who, (i.e.) A) 'God' or B) people, which one of the two would you select as being CLOSER to solving THE PROBLEM (A or B)?

A) 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

B) Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Yes. The apologists try to muddy the waters by fiddling with the definition or ...well, really just that. Calling it slavery because we have to put clothes on rather than go to work nude, being obliged to start the car when it should start without forcing us to actions against our will or being coerced into dividing months up to keep passage of time aligned with a controlling society is not slavery - it's living. I reckon they are not supporting slavery or trying to excuse it. They know what it is and that it's wrong as well as we do, and their apologetic is just to excuse the Bible, as a special case. And it's the same with every damn' thing from slaughtering a tribe to advising people to leave their family and join the cult. I again reference Tracie Harris' mustwatch 'religious family values' which shows the superb PR cover up that has persuaded even many atheists that Church is good, even if it may not be true.

[Wootah]

One other complication is that non Israelites could not own land in Israel. Just to keep in mind.

Question: If you were king of a land - isn't everyone on your land a slave?

There is an endemic nature to slavery being implied here in that question.

In my country I can be conscripted - with that possibility existing how am I not a slave? Who is free?