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]

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?

Haven't we already done this one to death? There is no way today that we would accept someone having slavery permitted in their country claiming that we are all slaves because our rulers own us. That is an organised society that is a trade off - we exchange work and taxers for services that provide our needs so we can focus on one job. Living in a society is not slavery. Nor does it mean there is no slavery or obliterate it where it happens today (if it does). And it does not excuse or eliminate slavery in the Bible, which is on paper condoned, and even approved.

[Purple Knight]

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.)

Short answer yes I disagree. I don't think this is right. It looks suspiciously like American slavery, which is the very event that has the whole world condemning slavery as wrong no matter what it actually is or isn't.

Long answer is more of I don't think this is right for everyone. But the words taken with the greatest technicality in that it says Israelites and means Israelites... Frankly I don't care if Israelites do this and I don't think this is necessarily fundamentally immoral. However, clearly, this passage is not for everyone to read and extrapolate to themselves because this is exactly what America did and it was probably the worst historical atrocity that has ever occurred. And the fact that not everyone can read it, do it, and be moral... makes Christianity in the wrong here.

So yes the Bible errs as I see it.

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)?

No. And I don't know what the best solution is. But what I am trying to get people to see and everyone seems to be ignoring, is that you don't stop people from suffering, sometimes in the exact same way, because you no longer call something slavery. Everyone recognises that American institutional slavery was an atrocity but the word slavery, not the act of slavery, is what has fallen out of favour.

A hardcore Libertarian will tell you today that a beating is fine and go ahead and knock out their eyes and teeth as long as they technically agreed to it, and that although the slave (I'm sorry, employee) can withdraw their consent at any time thus making the beating technically out of bounds, if the contract specifies a penalty for breach and that's eyes and teeth, the master (I'm sorry, employer) is welcome to take them. Can't cause permanent damage no matter what was agreed to? That's an upgrade from the Rothbardian pure free market.

(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.[/quote]

Yes because Christianity purports to extend the Bible to everyone equally and we have historical proof that when oppressive whites try to take slaves from the nations around them while never enslaving one another, it becomes an atrocity. So at very least, Christianity is in error. I am not defending the Bible. I'm saying that slavery is about what you do to the person and not what the act is called on paper.

Look:

I, Purple Knight, own the Queen of England. She is my property.

Now, what atrocity is that, that which I have just done by writing those words? None! Because I have done nothing to her. If I do start doing things to her, those things are, or are not, atrocious, based on those things I do and regardless of whether I think she's my property or not.

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'.

I'm not. But without someone who passes we can't declare failures. This slavery issue has the same problem as my fundamental problem with Christianity in which everyone is sinful. No success stories? Really? Everyone fails? No. I reject that. If we're to believe we can pass, and Jesus only has to step in because I screwed up, show me somebody who didn't screw up. Oh you can't? Rigged game then.

In this case we still haven't resolved the fundamental issues that make slavery an atrocity so I'm not going to declare the Hebrews sinful for practicing it. Whether things are better or worse now isn't the issue. The issue is whether the fundamental injustice still exists, and in all cases related to slavery I would say they do.

This doesn't mean progress means nothing; I think it does mean something. But just as a time traveler freeing one abused slave from one Hebrew does not fix the system, even if we have less suffering, even if we have saved some, that doesn't make our system morally superior if that system still generates and encourages that type of suffering. It doesn't erase what the time traveler did and he should still be commended but that's not the same as saying the system gets a pass now because someone was helped.

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.

I wouldn't choose based on these decrees at all without an assurance that the governments in question followed the spirit of them and not just the letter, making adjustments to that end, as necessary when conditions changed. I would want to see the systems for myself.

I have seen the system with my own eyes in case B and I know those words are no longer protective. It was written under the assumption that people were landed. In fact the 40 acres and a mule thing was to enfranchise freed slaves with land specifically because they knew a prohibition on legal slavery does factually nothing if people are still unlanded and thus have to work for whoever will pay them for whatever they will pay, even if that's nothing.

And I well imagine that the people who wrote it would have called it slavery, or at least involuntary servitude, this system we have now of unlanded serfs having to work for whoever will pay them because even if you go off the grid and somehow get land, you can't possibly pay the taxes on it otherwise.

[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?

Haven't we already done this one to death? There is no way today that we would accept someone having slavery permitted in their country claiming that we are all slaves because our rulers own us. That is an organised society that is a trade off - we exchange work and taxers for services that provide our needs so we can focus on one job. Living in a society is not slavery. Nor does it mean there is no slavery or obliterate it where it happens today (if it does). And it does not excuse or eliminate slavery in the Bible, which is on paper condoned, and even approved.

I don't know what you have done to death. Your response feels like you haven't really thought it through to me.

Do you advocate private property rights? Are you left or right? The wealth created from capitalism is based on the individuals right to own land. If someone aquires all the land and tells us to leave how will we survive? Fight them or offer them our labour?

I really get it. You are invested in this thread, enslaved to it perhaps? But as Galileo said to the inquisition, 'but it still turns'. The slavery in the world is a bit more hidden for you, you feel like you are making your own way perhaps?

But mostly life is about and definitely the Bible is asking us to choose our slave master. Jesus yoke is lightest but it is 'slavery (turtles) all the way down'. Jesus in turn inverts the world making being a slave = love thy neighbour. Love for others is to be a slave to them. Serve them by pointing them to Jesus.

Take the red pill and see it.

Or at least do enough to not pretend slavery is not endemic. Then when we see the problem we can find ways that ameliorate it.

[POI]

Dear "Purple Knight"

To save time, I have to ask... Are you a Christian of some flavor? The reason I ask, is I want to streamline our conversation. In doing so, I want to know where your starting-point lies; as it pertains to the Bible? Basically, I do not want to waste time responding to some things, where we may already agree

Hence, depending on your answer here, is how I will choose to answer specific parts of your response above (post 372)

The reason I ask, is due to the topic raised "A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves..." Meaning, the Bible lays forth a 'special kind of slavery' at best. And a Christian is forced to rationalize this position, unless they choose to ignore it...

Thank you!

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Haven't we already done this one to death? There is no way today that we would accept someone having slavery permitted in their country claiming that we are all slaves because our rulers own us. That is an organised society that is a trade off - we exchange work and taxers for services that provide our needs so we can focus on one job. Living in a society is not slavery. Nor does it mean there is no slavery or obliterate it where it happens today (if it does). And it does not excuse or eliminate slavery in the Bible, which is on paper condoned, and even approved.

I don't know what you have done to death. Your response feels like you haven't really thought it through to me.

Do you advocate private property rights? Are you left or right? The wealth created from capitalism is based on the individuals right to own land. If someone aquires all the land and tells us to leave how will we survive? Fight them or offer them our labour?

I really get it. You are invested in this thread, enslaved to it perhaps? But as Galileo said to the inquisition, 'but it still turns'. The slavery in the world is a bit more hidden for you, you feel like you are making your own way perhaps?

But mostly life is about and definitely the Bible is asking us to choose our slave master. Jesus yoke is lightest but it is 'slavery (turtles) all the way down'. Jesus in turn inverts the world making being a slave = love thy neighbour. Love for others is to be a slave to them. Serve them by pointing them to Jesus.

Take the red pill and see it.

Or at least do enough to not pretend slavery is not endemic. Then when we see the problem we can find ways that ameliorate it.

I am seeing it fine without any pills. I explained it above. The world knows what slavery is and the consensus is that it is wrong. It is ownership of people as property. Lifetime ownership, potentially. Trying to equate workplace practices that may indeed need improvement with chattel slavery is a smokescreen. Trying to make the work -exchange system we are born into equate to slavery is disgraceful apologetics for slavery and I'm sure you don't mean it, and are only trying to excuse Biblegod's omission of a condemnation of slavery and even acceptance of it. Quite understandable for human writers of the time, but a god should know better.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #375]

The world knows what slavery is and the consensus is that it is wrong.

The world loves to put on a show, pretending to care for lots of things. But sometimes being practical is actually caring.

I reckon many homeless men would submit to being a slave if it meant what it meant in the Bible. But because of left wing compassion we care for no one anymore.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #375]

The world knows what slavery is and the consensus is that it is wrong.

The world loves to put on a show, pretending to care for lots of things. But sometimes being practical is actually caring.

I reckon many homeless men would submit to being a slave if it meant what it meant in the Bible. But because of left wing compassion we care for no one anymore.

I won't get into which political wing is more to blame for social inequality than the other, but I agree that we need more care all round.

That is noting to do with the ownership of people as property, which is chattel slavery and is what is described and condoned in the Bible. You may suggest that some might opt for being a slave rather than starve. That doesn't alter the fact that in practice, slaves preferred to be free, both as recorded in the Bible and in 19th c. America. They knew what slavery was and what it wasn't, and we know it now.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #375]

The world knows what slavery is and the consensus is that it is wrong.

The world loves to put on a show, pretending to care for lots of things. But sometimes being practical is actually caring.

I reckon many homeless men would submit to being a slave if it meant what it meant in the Bible. But because of left wing compassion we care for no one anymore.

I won't get into which political wing is more to blame for social inequality than the other, but I agree that we need more care all round.

That is noting to do with the ownership of people as property, which is chattel slavery and is what is described and condoned in the Bible. You may suggest that some might opt for being a slave rather than starve. That doesn't alter the fact that in practice, slaves preferred to be free, both as recorded in the Bible and in 19th c. America. They knew what slavery was and what it wasn't, and we know it now.

The best kind of slave is the one that doesn't even know. How can they escape?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #375]

The world knows what slavery is and the consensus is that it is wrong.

The world loves to put on a show, pretending to care for lots of things. But sometimes being practical is actually caring.

I reckon many homeless men would submit to being a slave if it meant what it meant in the Bible. But because of left wing compassion we care for no one anymore.

I won't get into which political wing is more to blame for social inequality than the other, but I agree that we need more care all round.

That is noting to do with the ownership of people as property, which is chattel slavery and is what is described and condoned in the Bible. You may suggest that some might opt for being a slave rather than starve. That doesn't alter the fact that in practice, slaves preferred to be free, both as recorded in the Bible and in 19th c. America. They knew what slavery was and what it wasn't, and we know it now.

The best kind of slave is the one that doesn't even know. How can they escape?

It is always a question whether those who believe that their entrapment or cage is safety for them, and to what extent we are entitled to liberate for their own good whether they want it or not. That's another debate, but here it just underlines that chattel slavery is something that is not hard to know, not least because the Slave always knows it and knows that she or he wants to be free.

[Wootah]

Also to add. Christ the son obeys the Father perfectly even unto death on a cross. Now that is slavery there. I pray for the Spirirt that we might all follow God's example.