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]

Jesus neither condemned nor endosed slavery to humans.

A) His "Dad" seems to, endorse 'slavery'...

Endorse - declare one's public approval or support of.

Lev 25:46 - You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

B) If Jesus was smart, wouldn't He know that remaining indifferent, and/or not clearly defining what is acceptable 'slavery', would continue to set the stage for centuries and/or millennia of continued undefined chaos? As I stated in the OP... All He would have needed to say is (paraphrased) -- "humans, do not own others humans as slave/property for life." And maybe more to clarify His position on the matter. Remaining indifferent is both reckless and negligent of the populous He claims to care for.... Especially when His Dad seems to have already endorsed such practices prior. Meaning, He did not leave behind clear rules for humans to even attempt to follow, upon His later absence.

Reckless - without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.

Negligent - failing to take proper care in doing something

C) If Jesus was smart, Jesus would also know that the topic of 'slavery' is not a <trivial> one for humans. It's not like telling humans about whether or not they can eat shrimp.

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus neither condemned nor endosed slavery to humans.

A) His "Dad" seems to, endorse 'slavery'...

There a difference between the word "endorse" and "allow".

That is where the Bible fails. It does not see slavery as an issue that matters.

The bible addresses the underlying principles that relate to slavery...

ECCLESIATES 8:9 - New Living Translation

I have thought deeply about all that goes on here under the sun, where people have the power to hurt each other.

It also regulated the practice for Gods people while they lived as an independent state as well as promise future liberation from all oppressive slavery. Thus the bible does not fail to see slavery as an issue that matters.

[POI]

Jesus neither condemned nor endosed slavery to humans.

A) His "Dad" seems to, endorse 'slavery'...

There a difference between the word "endorse" and "allow".

Well, unfortunately for you, not enough to matter:

<endorse> - declare one's public approval or support of.

Did God <endorse> this passage below or not?

Lev 25:46 - You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

(unaddressed below)

B) If Jesus was smart, wouldn't He know that remaining indifferent, and/or not clearly defining what is acceptable 'slavery', would continue to set the stage for centuries and/or millennia of continued undefined chaos? As I stated in the OP... All He would have needed to say is (paraphrased) -- "humans, do not own others humans as slave/property for life." And maybe more to clarify His position on the matter. Remaining indifferent is both reckless and negligent of the populous He claims to care for.... Especially when His Dad seems to have already endorsed such practices prior. Meaning, He did not leave behind clear rules for humans to even attempt to follow, upon His later absence.

Reckless - without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.

Negligent - failing to take proper care in doing something

C) If Jesus was smart, Jesus would also know that the topic of 'slavery' is not a <trivial> one for humans. It's not like telling humans about whether or not they can eat shrimp.

[JehovahsWitness]

There a difference between the word "endorse" and "allow".

Well, unfortunately for you, not enough to matter

What "matters" for one person or another is a value judgement and entirely subjective. God's permission and regulation of slavery under the Hebrew system, should not (in my opinon) be extrapolated to endorsement of all slavery.

[POI]

Jesus neither condemned nor endosed slavery to humans.

A) His "Dad" seems to, endorse 'slavery'...

There a difference between the word "endorse" and "allow".

Well, unfortunately for you, not enough to matter:

<endorse> - declare one's public approval or support of.

Did God <endorse> this passage below or not?

Lev 25:46 - You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

(unaddressed below)

B) If Jesus was smart, wouldn't He know that remaining indifferent, and/or not clearly defining what is acceptable 'slavery', would continue to set the stage for centuries and/or millennia of continued undefined chaos? As I stated in the OP... All He would have needed to say is (paraphrased) -- "humans, do not own others humans as slave/property for life." And maybe more to clarify His position on the matter. Remaining indifferent is both reckless and negligent of the populous He claims to care for.... Especially when His Dad seems to have already endorsed such practices prior. Meaning, He did not leave behind clear rules for humans to even attempt to follow, upon His later absence.

Reckless - without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.

Negligent - failing to take proper care in doing something

C) If Jesus was smart, Jesus would also know that the topic of 'slavery' is not a <trivial> one for humans. It's not like telling humans about whether or not they can eat shrimp.

Your provided link is again a Gish gallop:

The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡælʌp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

[JehovahsWitness]

Your provided link is again a Gish gallop

You have provided no evidence to support you claim. Should you choose to do so I will be more than willing to read any factual information you wish to submit in support of your ( thus far unproven) conclusion.


Thank you for your participation,




JW

[POI]

There a difference between the word "endorse" and "allow".

Well, unfortunately for you, not enough to matter

What "matters" for one person'or another a value judgement and entirely subjective. God's permission and regulation of slavery under the Hebrew system, should not (in my opinon) be extrapolated to endorsement of all slavery.

Well then... Your aforementioned attempt to whitewash the terms (endorse vs allow) does not matter But the fact of the matter remains...

By definition, God <endorses> Lev 25:46 --> whether you like it or not.

And since the NT mentions "slavery" as well, this means God still endorses "OT slavery". Because, as the OP states, the "golden rule" was already in play in the OT as well. And God still endorses "slavery". Square that little pickle?.?.?.?

As I stated prior, for which you have yet to acknowledge... Not clearly defining what is and is not 'acceptable slavery' is both reckless and negligent.

It makes more sense that ignorant humans wrote what they wrote, and no "God" endorsed any of it Unless this god is "evil" and/or ignorant as well?

[POI]

Your provided link is again a Gish gallop

You have provided no evidence to support you claim. Should you choose to do so I will be more than willing to read any factual information you wish to submit in suport of your ( thus far unproven) conclusion.


Thank you for yoir participation,




JW

Yes I did. I provided the definition of a Gish gallop. If one is to pull up your provided link, you will see there is no rhyme or reason, as compared to my given response. And/or, no direct association. At best, it's a 'where's Waldo' game....

Thank you for your participation.

[JehovahsWitness]

Your provided link is again a Gish gallop

You have provided no evidence to support you claim. Should you choose to do so I will be more than willing to read any factual information you wish to submit in suport of your ( thus far unproven) conclusion.


Thank you for yoir participation,




JW

Yes I did.

I see no evidence that you did but if you provide a link or a direct quote to your material I will of course be happy to look again.





JW

[POI]

Your provided link is again a Gish gallop

You have provided no evidence to support you claim. Should you choose to do so I will be more than willing to read any factual information you wish to submit in suport of your ( thus far unproven) conclusion.


Thank you for yoir participation,




JW

Yes I did.

I see no evidence that you did but if you provide a link or a direct quote to your material I will of course be happy to look again.





JW

Please pay close attention to what is in bold red.

Well, unfortunately for you, not enough to matter:

<endorse> - declare one's public approval or support of.

Did God <endorse> this passage below or not?

Lev 25:46 - You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

(unaddressed below)

B) If Jesus was smart, wouldn't He know that remaining indifferent, and/or not clearly defining what is acceptable 'slavery', would continue to set the stage for centuries and/or millennia of continued undefined chaos? As I stated in the OP... All He would have needed to say is (paraphrased) -- "humans, do not own others humans as slave/property for life." And maybe more to clarify His position on the matter. Remaining indifferent is both reckless and negligent of the populous He claims to care for.... Especially when His Dad seems to have already endorsed such practices prior. Meaning, He did not leave behind clear rules for humans to even attempt to follow, upon His later absence.

Reckless - without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.

Negligent - failing to take proper care in doing something

C) If Jesus was smart, Jesus would also know that the topic of 'slavery' is not a <trivial> one for humans. It's not like telling humans about whether or not they can eat shrimp.