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]

If a free man beats another free man, and they recover, is no punishment applied here too? I doubt it.

EXODUS 21:18 19

If men are quarreling and one strikes the other with a stone or a fist, and he does not die but is confined to bed, then the one who struck him shall go unpunished, as long as the other can get up and walk around outside with his staff. Nevertheless, he must compensate the man for his lost work and see that he is completely healed

The principle of bodily integrity was universal as was that of compensation for injury. Thus whether slave or freeman, once INJURY was proved compensation was mandetory. And whether slave or freeman, if death was unintentional the death penalty was not imposed.

You almost had it.... You stopped short however...

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.

Remember, I said NO punishment. 18-19 is not deemed a criminal offense, but still a civil offense. The free man's punishment is that he must pay compensation.

Where-as in 20-21, there is no punishment ordered by god, i.e. (civil or criminal).

Nice try though.

[JehovahsWitness]

...we have many differing standards, it seems. If you are deemed someone else money/property, no 'justice' is applied towards the master for his beatings of the deemed slave.

WAS THERE REALLY "ONE LAW" FOR ALL IN ISRAEL?

LEVITICUS 24:22

You are to have the same standard of law for the foreign resident and the native; for I am the LORD your God.'"

NUMBERS 15:16
16 There should be one law and one judicial decision for you and for the foreigner who is residing with you.’

ANSWER: Yes there was "one law" as in, a single penal code by which all citizens should abide.



STANDARD V RULES

A "standard" refers to the basic principle upon which various rules repose. So for example if the "standard" in the medical profession is "First do no harm" it means there may well be different rules for different specialists but none of these should cause more harm to the patient than his illness.

In a similar way, although there may be different rules for different groups of people (in some countries, for example, Police officiers have the right to carry guns while ordinary citizens cannot), none of the differences should violate the basic principle of the law just as the American constitution restricts the nature and exercise of specific laws and ensured one law for all. The principle of the sanctity of life underpinned the Mosaic Law. All people had the right for their lives to be protected and for their bodies to be respected. Ahead of its time this applied to both slave and freeman.

NOTE: An argument from silence [it doesn't specifically say "including foreigners" so it must mean excluding foreigners ] is a legal absurdity (for a more detailed analysis of arguing from silence see post #186


EYE FOR EYE

Where-as in 20-21, there is no punishment ordered by god, i.e. (civil or criminal).

Both slave or freeman were had to be compensated upon providing physical proof of injury. For the freeman it would be being incapacitated for a period and for the slave it would be suffering some handicap. The point being the "standard" was the same (compensation for loss).

CONCLUSION: One could not beat anyone with impunty. Whether slave or freeman, if physical harm could be established compensation had to be rendered. There was one standard for all citizens in Israel and anyone (slave or freeman) could expect justice in regard their bodily souvereignty.





JW







LAW OF LOVE

Does the bible indicate how God would have felt about slaveowners beatings their slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078599#p1078599

Did the principle of loving one's neighbour EXCLUDE foreign slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1079896#p1079896

Was there really "one law" (one standard of law) for all people that lived in ancient Israel?
viewtopic.php?p=1079612#p1079612

How can there be one LAW if different rules apply to different people?
viewtopic.php?p=1079662#p1079662

Could the "Law of Love" found at Leviticus 19:18b, co-exist in a system that allows for lifelong slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1079905#p1079905

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

LOVE & SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING

[JehovahsWitness]

... Immunity and impunity are instructed by God.

Post #173

[POI]

...we have many differing standards, it seems. If you are deemed someone else money/property, no 'justice' is applied towards the master for his beatings of the deemed slave.

STANDARD V RULES

A "standard" refers to the basic principle upon which various rules repose. So for example if the "standard" in the medical profession is "First do no harm" it means there may well be different rules for different specialists but none of these should cause more harm to the patient than his illness.

This is another red herring and/or strawman argument. But I'll chase it, for kix...

Show me where, in the Hippocratic Oath, it states that a doctor is exempt from (any punishment), as long as the patient recovers and is deemed property.

In a similar way, although there may be different rules for different groups of people (in some countries, for example, Police officiers have the right to carry guns while ordinary citizens cannot), none of the differences should violate the basic principle of the law.

And another one, filled with red herring and/or strawman argumentation...

Okay... You walk into a building which states "no firearms". But you see the attending security guard is packing heat. Of course, common sense would allow one to know there exists exception, for protection's sake. In the case of the Bible, and the 'golden rule', the EXCEPTION lies with the human ---> which is deemed property.

Where-as in 20-21, there is no punishment ordered by god, i.e. (civil or criminal).

Both slave or freeman were had to be compensated upon providing physical proof of injury. For the freeman it would be being incapacitated for a period and for the slave it would be suffering some handicap. The point being the "standard" was the same (compensation for loss).

CONCLUSION: One could not beat anyone with impunty. Whether slave or freeman, if physical harm could be established compensation had to be rendered. There was one standard for all citizens in Israel and anyone (slave or freeman) could expect justice in regard their bodily souvereignty.

The standard is NOT the same. One is deemed free, and the other is deemed one's property. Since you like scenarios, here's one.

The slave sustains an injury and can no longer work. The master beats him/her. In fact, he beats him/her once a week, for months/years, because the master thinks the slave is just being lazy or faking it. The slave always recovers after a fay or two. Aside from the fact that the slave is already not working, what compensation is the slave ordered to receive, (civil or criminal), from God?

Now compare this to a standard employer/employee relationship. What if the boss was to beat the injured employee?

[JehovahsWitness]

The slave sustains an injury and can no longer work. ... Now compare this to [the Hebrew hired man] What if the boss was to beat the injured [hired hand]?

This point has been covered ...

CONCLUSION: One could not beat anyone with impunty. Whether slave or freeman, if physical harm could be established compensation had to be rendered. There was one standard for all citizens in Israel and anyone (slave or freeman) could expect justice in regard their bodily souvereignty.

In both cases compensation had to be rendered. If the slave could not work for two days then he obviously sustained significant INJURY; if he cannot walk, bend, carry, see...then either a bone or eye would have been damaged, he has sustained a head injury and he cannot hear, or has virtigo... his muscles or tissues are damaged, he has suffered blood loss or has been incapacitated in some significant way: his compensation then would be his freedom. Thus he could escape such a tyrant.

The Hebrew hired hand would under similar circumstances be paid for his loss of earnings.

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

LOVE & SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... ABOLITION

[JehovahsWitness]

HOW CAN A COUNTRY HAVE ONE LAW OR ONE STANDARD IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT RULES/LAWS APPLICABLE TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE?

You walk into a building which states "no firearms". But you see the attending security guard is packing heat. Of course, common sense would allow one to know there exists exception, for protection's sake.

Exactly; there is a different rule for the security guard but the security guard still operates under the same Law. In other words, the Guard is not above "The Law"; there is still " one law" (as in a single unique penal code) for security guards and ordinary citizens despite the fact that different rules apply depending on the circumstance.

Thus, the security Guard can have a gun but he can only use it for protections sake, he cannot use it to shoot anyone he likes with impunity since THE LAW, as in the law code to which he is still subject, prohibits murder. The prohibition against unlawful killing of ANY citizen (even a bank robber or a known criminal) contains and controls the rule of exception which allows him to carry arms.

In the same way, the Mosaic law contained many different RULES for different circumstances or citizens, not everyone had the same rights but (and here is the point) certain constitution rights applied to all citizens; the Ten commandements for example contained principles that applied indescriminaently to all citizens regardless of their status and this governed the limits of any subsequent rules. There were no exceptions for these basic principles as demonstrated (proven) by the implimentation of rules protecting bodily integrity and the sanctity of life. If the life of a slave was not sacred there would be no death penalty for his murder. If his body had no right to be protected, there could be no compensation for its injury.

CONCLUSION: The existence of universal laws which cannot be violated is demonstrated by the existence of rules which explicity prohibited their violation . There is thus no valid basis to claim slave were nit protected by the law of love or that the Mosaic Laws offered no justice to the foreign slave.

JW








LAW OF LOVE

Does the bible indicate how God would have felt about slaveowners beatings their slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078599#p1078599

Did the principle of loving one's neighbour EXCLUDE foreign slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1079896#p1079896

Was there really "one law" (one standard of law) for all people that lived in ancient Israel?
viewtopic.php?p=1079612#p1079612

How can there be one LAW if different rules apply to different people?
viewtopic.php?p=1079662#p1079662

Could the "Law of Love" found at Leviticus 19:18b, co-exist in a system that allows for lifelong slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1079905#p1079905

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

LOVE & SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING

[JehovahsWitness]

In the case of the Bible, and the 'golden rule', the EXCEPTION lies with the human ---> which is deemed property.

So you claim but have yet to demonstrate.

[POI]

The slave sustains an injury and can no longer work. ... Now compare this to [the Hebrew hired man] What if the boss was to beat the injured [hired hand]?

This point has been covered ...

CONCLUSION: One could not beat anyone with impunty. Whether slave or freeman, if physical harm could be established compensation had to be rendered. There was one standard for all citizens in Israel and anyone (slave or freeman) could expect justice in regard their bodily souvereignty.

In both cases compensation had to be rendered. If the slave could not work for two days then he obviously sustained significant INJURY; if he cannot walk, bend, carry, see...then either a bone or eye would have been damaged, he has sustained a head injury and he cannot hear, or has virtigo... his muscles or tissues are damaged, he has suffered blood loss or has been incapacitated in some significant way: his compensation then would be his freedom. Thus he could escape such a tyrant.

The Hebrew hired hand would under similar circumstances be paid for his loss of earnings.

Just whip them from the back side. You know, this was the customary mode of keeping slaves in line. And you will notice it falls right in line with avoiding any punishment deemed by God. --- Via Exodus 21.

[POI]

In the case of the Bible, and the 'golden rule', the EXCEPTION lies with the human ---> which is deemed property.

So you claim but have yet to demonstrate.

Oh I've demonstrated plenty. You just choose to ignore.

[JehovahsWitness]

DID THE MOSAIC LAW ALLOWS FOR SLAVES TO BE WHIPPED FROM THE BACK?

Just whip them from the back side. You know, this was the customary mode of keeping slaves in line. And you will notice it falls right in line with avoiding any punishment deemed by God. --- Via Exodus 21.

Whiping someone from the backside would not only violate the law of love and constitute a criminal offense but would still result on physical INJURY which would probably incapacitate them for at least a day or two. Thus the abused slave could prove injury and had the right to be compensated.

For more on the right to compensation, see post #205


TOOTH FOR TOOTH

An interesting point about the rule for compensation following a BEATING is that God said that a slave was to be freed if he lost a TOOTH as a result of abuse. This is particularly telling because while loss of a TOOTH may impede chewing, it could hardly be considered a serious injury and if it were a front tooth, its loss might be considered merely aesthetic. Granted, the loss of a tooth indicated a blow to the head which could have been life threatening, but it also illustrates the point that injury did not have to be serious to constitute a violation of the slaves bodily integity ; the slaveowner had no right to deliberately change the slaves appearance, his [the slaves] body was his and his alone.

Thus we can reasonably conclude that whipping of the back (of the kind practiced by the American and European slaveowners in the 17th and 18th century) was absolutely prohibited under bible law as it would not only have incapacitated the slave for a number of days but have resulted in physical scarring that violated Hebrew law and principle.







RELATED POSTS

Were foreign slaves considered chattle ?
viewtopic.php?p=1079301#p1079301

Would Hebrew slaveowner be permitted to beat a slave from the back?
viewtopic.php?p=1079667#p1079667

Does the bible indicate how God would have felt about slaveowners beatings their slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078599#p1078599

Is the slavery that existed under bible law comparable to the European & American slave trade?[regulations]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p811779

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

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW