Slavery

[Malleus]

Hi there, Malleus here, long time reader, first time complainer. I am wondering, is the so called moral high ground that various religious groups seem to take warranted, having just read a section of the ten commandments, I came upon a passage thus:

(1) Then God spoke all these words: (2) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; (3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (7) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (8) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. (9) Six days you shall labor and do all your work. (10) But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. (11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. (12) Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (13) You shall not murder. (14) You shall not commit adultery. (15) You shall not steal. (16) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (17) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Exodus 20:1-17

As you can see, it first talks of how god has removed the followers from the house of slavery, yet seems to make it clear in the bolded sections that it is fine and dandy to own slaves. Opinions???

Question: Is the Bible a piece of Hate literature proposing double standards and endorsing slavery?

[achilles12604]

A young girl screams as the beast she calls master forces himself upon her. She begs him to stop but her pleas fall on deaf ears. The master has needs. She is 13. Sally is his property and this is his right.

Outside a father cries. He tries with all his might to break his chains but to no avail. Crack goes the whip. Lightning and fire run down his back. He hears his bother say, "You shouldn’t outta have hit the master, Jimmy". What choice did he have. A man has to protect his family. Crack, goes the whip. Again and Again! Eventually, everything goes dark.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Colossians 3:22 (NIV)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ephesians 6:5(NIV)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."1 Peter 2:18 (NIV)

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,"
Titus 2:9 (NIV)

Tell me where is the wisdom in these passages. Maybe in some fantasy world long ago, this was considered enlightening, but truth does not grow putrid over time. These ideas are disgusting and totally off the mark for our reality today. If you found them in any other book, besides the Bible, you would use it for toilet paper.

Here’s some real wisdom: "All men are created equal", but you won’t find that in the Bible.

You do resort to mellowdramatics often enough without addressing points of fact put forth by myself or others. Good for you. It works well on masses but is useless as far as debate is concerned.

[achilles12604]

A young girl screams as the beast she calls master forces himself upon her. She begs him to stop but her pleas fall on deaf ears. The master has needs. She is 13. Sally is his property and this is his right.

Outside a father cries. He tries with all his might to break his chains but to no avail. Crack goes the whip. Lightning and fire run down his back. He hears his bother say, "You shouldn’t outta have hit the master, Jimmy". What choice did he have. A man has to protect his family. Crack, goes the whip. Again and Again! Eventually, everything goes dark.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Colossians 3:22 (NIV)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ephesians 6:5(NIV)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."1 Peter 2:18 (NIV)

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,"
Titus 2:9 (NIV)

Tell me where is the wisdom in these passages. Maybe in some fantasy world long ago, this was considered enlightening, but truth does not grow putrid over time. These ideas are disgusting and totally off the mark for our reality today. If you found them in any other book, besides the Bible, you would use it for toilet paper.

Here’s some real wisdom: "All men are created equal", but you won’t find that in the Bible.

You do resort to mellowdramatics often enough without addressing points of fact put forth by myself or others. Good for you. It works well on masses but is useless as far as debate is concerned.

Righteous - We do not endorse or condone :

Beating, molesting, whipping, starving, stabbing, shooting, maiming, torturing or murdering anyone . . . ever.

At the same time, I still hold that slavery for many people in that era was a far better life then they would have had otherwise. That is why people then SOLD THEMSELVES INTO SLAVERY!


Answer this . . . Why would people have voluntarily sold themselves and their families into slavery if I and Ami are incorrect in our views?

[McCulloch]

You do resort to mellowdramatics often enough without addressing points of fact put forth by myself or others. Good for you. It works well on masses but is useless as far as debate is concerned.

I think that you have missed the point of RI's argument. Please, answer his question. Of what value do the teachings that he has cited in the Bible have to those who have been put into involuntary servitude? Nowhere do any of the Bible writers condemn involuntary servitude. The slave will find no justification to resist his captors. No, quite the opposite. Should a Christian slave resist an evil master? Not according to the Bible. Should a Christian slave struggle to free himself? Not according to the Bible.

[achilles12604]

You do resort to mellowdramatics often enough without addressing points of fact put forth by myself or others. Good for you. It works well on masses but is useless as far as debate is concerned.

I think that you have missed the point of RI's argument. Please, answer his question. Of what value do the teachings that he has cited in the Bible have to those who have been put into involuntary servitude? Nowhere do any of the Bible writers condemn involuntary servitude. The slave will find no justification to resist his captors. No, quite the opposite. Should a Christian slave resist an evil master? Not according to the Bible. Should a Christian slave struggle to free himself? Not according to the Bible.

Please, answer his question. Of what value do the teachings that he has cited in the Bible have to those who have been put into involuntary servitude?

For one. . . I'm not convinced that Paul was writing to an area that was involved with involuntary servatude. We have records of people selling themselves into slavery in Rome and Greece during this time. Can you or he show that these civilizations forced large numbers of people into slavery like the Americas did during the 17 and 1800s?

Example : Rome conqured syria. Did they capture large amounts of Jews and return to Rome and force them into slavery?

Here is a excerpt from an article on Pompey's conquest of Jerusalem. Note the end result of the prisoners . . .

Meanwhile, Marcus Aemilius Scaurus attacked Aretas of Petra, but allowed himself to be bribed for another 6,000 kg of silver. Soon afterwards, he was killed (an event mentioned in one of the Dead Sea scrolls). At that moment, Pompey had already left Judaea, and after pacifying Crete, he returned to Rome, where he had become the most influential politician of his age. He took many prisoners with him, who were later released and settled in the large section of Rome beyond the river Tiber (Philo of Alexandria, Embassy to Caligula 155; go here for description).

http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar01.htm

Hmm . . . Why would he simply release these people if the culture of the day was to force people into slavery? His actions would make no sense. . .

Therefore his (and your) questions are invalid until you can show that slaves were forced into that position by the culture of the day. I see no historical evidence that this is the case.

Even so. . . I did address why Paul's letters were in general a good idea for slaves. I guess you just missed that post.

Post 87

achilles12604 wrote:

Righteous Indignation wrote:

achilles12604 wrote:

Righteous Indignation wrote:

achilles12604 wrote:
Post all the shock pics you wish. It doesn't apply to the time period or the civilizations I was talking about so at best, it is a red herring.

So when did God's words loose relevance to our present time? Did God not know of the tortured man in the picture above (or the pain of multitudes like him) when he was writing the Bible? Why would he ignore the future consequences of a pro-slavery stand?

Where on earth is the bible pro-slavery? You still have not shown your basic premise to be true. Working from assumptions is how miss information was born. (pun intended)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Colossians 3:22 (NIV)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ephesians 6:5(NIV)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."1 Peter 2:18 (NIV)

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,"
Titus 2:9 (NIV)

If all slaves had the courage and will power not to submit to their aggressors there could be no slavery. God is telling them don’t resist. Kind of like the Blue Oyster Cult song that says, "Don’t fear the refer". God's words are pro-slavery as surely as Blue Oyster Cult's song is pro-marijuana.

All of these say the same thing and all of them are good advise considering the circumstances those people were in. If someone is in slavery, and slavery is common, what good would it do the person to smart off, ignore, attack, or otherwise piss off their masters? None, in fact it would make their situation much worse. So what is wrong with common sense advise?

It was good common sense advise.

Nowhere do any of the Bible writers condemn involuntary servitude.

Oh .. . . I see. So because the bible doesn't specifically say "McCulloch . . . Here by God declares that involuntary servatude is immoral and wrong." that the bible must be for it by default?

Lets allply your line of thinking to any number of other books. Does the fact that the Quran doesn't say that the genocide of the Jews by the German army mean that Allah was for that Genocide? Wow I guess that disproves Allah as either all knowing or as merciful and kind God huh?


Lets go further. . . Lets examine Albert Einstien's position on Stalin's murder of the surfs. Wait . . . He didn't write a book about Stalin and the surfs? He wrote a lot of other articles and documents. I guess he must have agreed that Stalin's murder of the surfs was A-ok.

Do you see the flaw in your logic?

The slave will find no justification to resist his captors. No, quite the opposite. Should a Christian slave resist an evil master? Not according to the Bible. Should a Christian slave struggle to free himself? Not according to the Bible

Considering that I have shown (and history shows as well) that people sold THEMSELVES into slavery in ancient Rome and Greece (paul's audience), why would they then wish to "struggle to free himself?

Hello ? He chose to be there (or at the very least chose this option over starvation for himself and his entire family).

[McCulloch]

For one. . . I'm not convinced that Paul was writing to an area that was involved with involuntary servitude.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Colossians 3:22 (NIV)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ephesians 6:5(NIV)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."1 Peter 2:18 (NIV)

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,"
Titus 2:9 (NIV)

This servitude looks quite involuntary to me. Am I missing something?

Kind of like the Blue Oyster Cult song that says, "Don’t fear the refer".

The Blue Öyster Cult song is "Don't fear the Reaper". It talks about death not pot. It is from the "Agents of Fortune" album, 1976. I saw them live a long time ago.

[achilles12604]

For one. . . I'm not convinced that Paul was writing to an area that was involved with involuntary servitude.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Colossians 3:22 (NIV)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ephesians 6:5(NIV)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."1 Peter 2:18 (NIV)

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,"
Titus 2:9 (NIV)

This servitude looks quite involuntary to me. Am I missing something?

Kind of like the Blue Oyster Cult song that says, "Don’t fear the refer".

The Blue Öyster Cult song is "Don't fear the Reaper". It talks about death not pot. It is from the "Agents of Fortune" album, 1976. I saw them live a long time ago.

Thanks for totally avoiding both the ideas and the evidence I put forth and inserting your interpretation of biblical verses. Well done indeed. Are you going to at least try to counter what I wrote about Pompey? Are you going to address the differences in cultures from the 1700's and ancient Rome and Greece? I keep bringing up these points and so far I am being ignored.

Are you not addressing it because they are valid points which contradict what non-theists (or perhaps just a select few) wish to believe about servatude, and the bible?

[McCulloch]

Thanks for totally avoiding both the ideas and the evidence I put forth and inserting your interpretation of biblical verses. Well done indeed. Are you going to at least try to counter what I wrote about Pompey? Are you going to address the differences in cultures from the 1700's and ancient Rome and Greece? I keep bringing up these points and so far I am being ignored.

Ouch! Of course, you are correct. We have been wrong to ignore your points in our efforts to score an easy win. Thank you for pointing this out.

Are you not addressing it because they are valid points which contradict what non-theists (or perhaps just a select few) wish to believe about servitude, and the bible?

No, I don't think that is our rationale. I think that we have fallen victim to a habit not unknown to believers. It is so much easier to try to understand what is written in the Bible from the context of our current times rather than from the context of the times they were written in. No excuses, we have been lazy.

I will go back and read your ideas again and see if it makes sense.

[Righteous Indignation]

Kind of like the Blue Oyster Cult song that says, "Don’t fear the refer".

The Blue Öyster Cult song is "Don't fear the Reaper". It talks about death not pot. It is from the "Agents of Fortune" album, 1976. I saw them live a long time ago.

My bad. It looks like your right McCulloch. I can't believe I've been hearing it wrong for 30 years!

[Righteous Indignation]

I only have time to address one point of contention at this time.

For one. . . I'm not convinced that Paul was writing to an area that was involved with involuntary servatude. We have records of people selling themselves into slavery in Rome and Greece during this time. Can you or he show that these civilizations forced large numbers of people into slavery like the Americas did during the 17 and 1800s?

Yes, I can show you that these civilizations forced large numbers of people into slavery. Go to Yahoo and enter two words, "Rome" and "Slaves".

Link One: Encyclopedia Britannica Online
http://www.crystalinks.com/romeslavery.html

"When the Romans conquered the Mediterranean, they took millions of slaves to Italy, where they toiled on the large plantations or in the houses and workplaces of wealthy citizens."

"Roman law was inconsistent on slavery. Slaves were considered property; they had no rights and were subject to their owners' whims. However, they had legal standing as witnesses in courtroom proceedings, and they could eventually gain freedom and citizenship. Masters often freed loyal slaves in gratitude for their faithful service, but slaves could also save money to purchase their freedom. Conditions for slaves in Rome gradually improved, although slaves were treated cruelly in the countryside. "

Link Two: "The Discovery Channel"
http://www.exn.ca/rome/fast_facts.htm

"Slaves generally came from conquered peoples, but even a free man unable to pay back his debts could be sold into slavery."

Link Three: The HBO series "Rome"
http://www.hbo.com/rome/about/

After eight years of war, Gaius Julius Caesar has completed his masterful conquest of Gaul, and is returning to Rome. He brings with him legions of battle-hardened, loyal men, unimaginable riches in slaves, gold and plunder, and a populist agenda for radical social change.

Link Four: "Daily Life in Ancient Rome"
http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/Romelife.html

"Slaves: Wealthy ancient Romans had slaves. In some homes, slaves were treated like valued servants. In others, they were severely abused."

Link Five: About: Ancient / Classical History
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romeslavery/
Click on "Slave or Servitude" or "Origins of Slavery" They both say the same thing.

"Romans got their slaves mostly among those they conquered."

Link Six: "MacroHistory"
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch16.htm

And when the people of Sardinia and Corsica rose against Rome in an attempt to re-establish their independence, Rome sent armies against them. Rome did not wish to tolerate any example of defiance. It crushed the uprisings and made slaves of 80,000 Sardinians, glutting its slave market and making "as cheap as a Sardinian" a common expression among the Romans.

"He [Marcus Porcius Cato] passed a law limiting the size of private feasting, and he created a tax on high-priced slaves in order to discourage the purchase of attractive young male slaves for use as pages or concubines."

The Republic of Epirus had given Perseus no effective help during the war, but because it had allied itself with Perseus, the Romans attacked its towns and villages and carried away 150,000 people whom they sold into slavery.

"With the growing supply of slaves, on some days in Rome thousands of men, women and children might be put on the market, forced to stand naked, a placard around their neck to advertise their qualities, their flesh inspected and felt. For a pretty boy or girl a Roman might have to pay more, but a Sardinian, Gaul or Spaniard cost very little - far less than it cost to breed a slave.
Plantation owners placed male slaves in barracks or housed them in underground dungeons, leaving them separated from their families, which they might never see again. Plantation slaves worked in gangs ordered about by men with lashes. They were chained at night so they could not run away."

This goes on and on but I think you get the point. The consensus seems to be:

One: Most slaves were acquired through military conquest.
Two: Although some slaves may have been well treated many were abused.

[achilles12604]

I only have time to address one point of contention at this time.

For one. . . I'm not convinced that Paul was writing to an area that was involved with involuntary servatude. We have records of people selling themselves into slavery in Rome and Greece during this time. Can you or he show that these civilizations forced large numbers of people into slavery like the Americas did during the 17 and 1800s?

Yes, I can show you that these civilizations forced large numbers of people into slavery. Go to Yahoo and enter two words, "Rome" and "Slaves".

Link One: Encyclopedia Britannica Online
http://www.crystalinks.com/romeslavery.html

"When the Romans conquered the Mediterranean, they took millions of slaves to Italy, where they toiled on the large plantations or in the houses and workplaces of wealthy citizens."

"Roman law was inconsistent on slavery. Slaves were considered property; they had no rights and were subject to their owners' whims. However, they had legal standing as witnesses in courtroom proceedings, and they could eventually gain freedom and citizenship. Masters often freed loyal slaves in gratitude for their faithful service, but slaves could also save money to purchase their freedom. Conditions for slaves in Rome gradually improved, although slaves were treated cruelly in the countryside. "

Link Two: "The Discovery Channel"
http://www.exn.ca/rome/fast_facts.htm

"Slaves generally came from conquered peoples, but even a free man unable to pay back his debts could be sold into slavery."

Link Three: The HBO series "Rome"
http://www.hbo.com/rome/about/

After eight years of war, Gaius Julius Caesar has completed his masterful conquest of Gaul, and is returning to Rome. He brings with him legions of battle-hardened, loyal men, unimaginable riches in slaves, gold and plunder, and a populist agenda for radical social change.

Link Four: "Daily Life in Ancient Rome"
http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/Romelife.html

"Slaves: Wealthy ancient Romans had slaves. In some homes, slaves were treated like valued servants. In others, they were severely abused."

Link Five: About: Ancient / Classical History
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romeslavery/
Click on "Slave or Servitude" or "Origins of Slavery" They both say the same thing.

"Romans got their slaves mostly among those they conquered."

Link Six: "MacroHistory"
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch16.htm

And when the people of Sardinia and Corsica rose against Rome in an attempt to re-establish their independence, Rome sent armies against them. Rome did not wish to tolerate any example of defiance. It crushed the uprisings and made slaves of 80,000 Sardinians, glutting its slave market and making "as cheap as a Sardinian" a common expression among the Romans.

"He [Marcus Porcius Cato] passed a law limiting the size of private feasting, and he created a tax on high-priced slaves in order to discourage the purchase of attractive young male slaves for use as pages or concubines."

The Republic of Epirus had given Perseus no effective help during the war, but because it had allied itself with Perseus, the Romans attacked its towns and villages and carried away 150,000 people whom they sold into slavery.

"With the growing supply of slaves, on some days in Rome thousands of men, women and children might be put on the market, forced to stand naked, a placard around their neck to advertise their qualities, their flesh inspected and felt. For a pretty boy or girl a Roman might have to pay more, but a Sardinian, Gaul or Spaniard cost very little - far less than it cost to breed a slave.
Plantation owners placed male slaves in barracks or housed them in underground dungeons, leaving them separated from their families, which they might never see again. Plantation slaves worked in gangs ordered about by men with lashes. They were chained at night so they could not run away."

This goes on and on but I think you get the point. The consensus seems to be:

One: Most slaves were acquired through military conquest.
Two: Although some slaves may have been well treated many were abused.

Ok you have shown point one to be correct. Rome did have many slaves of conquest.

As for point two . . . lets figure out how many of your sources indicate they were treated badly vs otherwise. . .

"When the Romans conquered the Mediterranean, they took millions of slaves to Italy, where they toiled on the large plantations or in the houses and workplaces of wealthy citizens."

This does not mention beatings or harm. It mentions that they toiled. While it doesn't prove they wern't mistreated, it certainly doesn't show any indication that they were being mistreated. It is neutral at worse and leans toward showing the slaves were not harmed as they had to be cared for in order to work well. The wealthy who bought them would probably not damage their investments.

"Roman law was inconsistent on slavery. Slaves were considered property; they had no rights and were subject to their owners' whims. However, they had legal standing as witnesses in courtroom proceedings, and they could eventually gain freedom and citizenship. Masters often freed loyal slaves in gratitude for their faithful service, but slaves could also save money to purchase their freedom. Conditions for slaves in Rome gradually improved, although slaves were treated cruelly in the countryside. "

This quote gives much more evidence for the good treatment of the slaves than poor treatment. Points this source makes are . . .

1) The were recognized as people in court.
2) The could gain both freedom and citizenship. Lets compare this to the Americas where until reform took place the slaves could not be witnesses, were not recognized as people (at least not whole people and then only for financial purposes), and they certainly wern't becoming citizens in large numbers.
3) Master would OFTEN free slaves in gratitude for faithful service.
4) Slaves could purchase their own freedom. (they must have been getting paid from somewhere . . . )
5) Conditions improved over time.


Then there is one sentence that supports your ideas of mistreatment. However your sentence specifically points out mistreatment in the sparsely populated areas. The MAJORITY of people do not fall into this catagory.

5 for me . . . 1 for you, and your one specifies the outskirts of the civilization.

"Slaves generally came from conquered peoples, but even a free man unable to pay back his debts could be sold into slavery."

This shows our point that people would sell themselves into slavery to survive. I ask again . . . WHY would someone do this if MOST slaves were horribly mistreated? Why are the non-theists avoiding this question?

After eight years of war, Gaius Julius Caesar has completed his masterful conquest of Gaul, and is returning to Rome. He brings with him legions of battle-hardened, loyal men, unimaginable riches in slaves, gold and plunder, and a populist agenda for radical social change.

This one doesn't really point to any particular side.

"Slaves: Wealthy ancient Romans had slaves. In some homes, slaves were treated like valued servants. In others, they were severely abused."

Hmm this seems to be a split. I think it highly likely that the home with the mistreatment were once again in the countryside. At worst this is an even split between our opinions.

"Romans got their slaves mostly among those they conquered."

Neutral once again.

And when the people of Sardinia and Corsica rose against Rome in an attempt to re-establish their independence, Rome sent armies against them. Rome did not wish to tolerate any example of defiance. It crushed the uprisings and made slaves of 80,000 Sardinians, glutting its slave market and making "as cheap as a Sardinian" a common expression among the Romans.

This one does not indicate one way or the other about the treatment of the slaves, again.

"He [Marcus Porcius Cato] passed a law limiting the size of private feasting, and he created a tax on high-priced slaves in order to discourage the purchase of attractive young male slaves for use as pages or concubines."

Interesting that you underlined the pages or concubines section while you managed to miss that the entire point of this section was that this kind of behavior was being discouraged even as high as the Roman government.

The Republic of Epirus had given Perseus no effective help during the war, but because it had allied itself with Perseus, the Romans attacked its towns and villages and carried away 150,000 people whom they sold into slavery.

This does not indicate one way or the other.

"With the growing supply of slaves, on some days in Rome thousands of men, women and children might be put on the market, forced to stand naked, a placard around their neck to advertise their qualities, their flesh inspected and felt. For a pretty boy or girl a Roman might have to pay more, but a Sardinian, Gaul or Spaniard cost very little - far less than it cost to breed a slave.
Plantation owners placed male slaves in barracks or housed them in underground dungeons, leaving them separated from their families, which they might never see again. Plantation slaves worked in gangs ordered about by men with lashes. They were chained at night so they could not run away."

This points in your favor. However, the site you picked this from was titled . . .

Empire and Politics by Violence to 79BCE.

So not only are you over 150 YEARS out of date . . . . But you picked a site which was focused on the violent aspects of the empire.




Lets review your sources now . . .(thank you Cmass) . . .

Link Six: "MacroHistory"
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch16.htm

Not within the timeframe we were discussing by 150 years and a source which purposefully focused on the violent aspects of the empire before 79 BC.

Link Five: About: Ancient / Classical History
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romeslavery/

This is a forum just like DCR. This should never be used as a source. It is simply discussions just like we are having.


This next source, you left out 5/6 of the material. Also this is from a CHILDRENS source. Hardly an acedemic pillar but still lets see.

Link Four: "Daily Life in Ancient Rome"
http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/Romelife.html

Slaves: Wealthy ancient Romans had slaves. In some homes, slaves were treated like valued servants. In others, they were severely abused. Slaves kept the furnaces burning in the bath houses, cooked meals in smoking chimneys in the kitchens, cleaned, sewed, and did the household and garden labor for wealthy Romans. Intelligent and gifted slaves also tutored the kids (those kids who studied their subjects at home), kept the accounts, and sometimes ran vast farm estates or commercial departments of their masters' firms.

After your initial sentence the source goes on to describe slaves as tutors, keeping accounts and running estates! The worst jobs described include things that we see paid servants doing today so nothing is wrong there. Now that I see the whole thing, I can take back the 50/50 split of favor and submit that this section tends to support that slaves were not mistreated except in very few cases.

Link Three: The HBO series "Rome"
http://www.hbo.com/rome/about/

Oh my goodness. . .This "source" is an advertisement for the HBO series Rome. It talks more about hollywood than Rome. You want me to take this seriously? Also the part that does mention rome once again points to 52 BC. Common now . . . What am I supposed to think?

Link Two: "The Discovery Channel"
http://www.exn.ca/rome/fast_facts.htm

Finally a credible source. Hu oh . . . Look what the rest of the story says . . .

Slaves generally came from conquered peoples, but even a free man unable to pay back his debts could be sold into slavery. In the city of Rome, slaves were particularly popular in the imperial household and civil service; a compliment of 700 slaves made up a typical aqueduct work crew alone. Certain wealthy private individuals also held large numbers of slaves - perhaps more for show of wealth than genuine need.

The slaves were assigned to high quality jobs like engineering the aqueducts and working in the imperial house. This sounds like a really rough life.


Good deal, another credible source. We are up to 2 (3 if you include the HBO special on thier series).

Link One: Encyclopedia Britannica Online
http://www.crystalinks.com/romeslavery.html

Hu oh again. Look what the rest of this source says . . .

When the Romans conquered the Mediterranean, they took millions of slaves to Italy, where they toiled on the large plantations or in the houses and workplaces of wealthy citizens. The Italian economy depended on abundant slave labor, with slaves constituting 40 percent of the population. Enslaved people with talent, skill, or beauty commanded the highest prices, and many served as singers, scribes, jewelers, bartenders, and even doctors. One slave trained in medicine was worth the price of 50 agricultural slaves.

Once again you left out the job descriptions of many slaves. Singers, scribes, jewlers, bartenders and doctors. Ouch . . . I'd hate to be a slave for those cruel masters.

But wait . . .theres more.

Some harsh masters believed in the old proverb "Every slave is an enemy," so that while humane legislation prohibited the mutilation or murder of slaves, outrageous cruelty continued. Like the Stoic philosophers, Christians taught the brotherhood of humanity and urged kindness towards slaves, but they did not consider slaves equals in status.

For example, Saint Augustine opposed the principle of slavery, but did not see how the practice could be abolished without endangering the social order. Thus he regarded it as another necessary evil resulting from humanity's fall from divine grace.

Oh dear. What does this do to the "Christians are pro-slavery" arguement? It was a necessity and slaves should be treated not only humanily, but even kindly.





What a pack of horrible sources. My favorite was the HBO but the children's source was pretty good as well. Of course then there was the problem of a couple sources talking about 150 years earlier (200 if you want to streatch) and the fact you chose one source that was specifically LOOKING for violence. Bias? Hmmm?

The few good sources you did have (two if I remember right) were the most positive on their outlooks and one even included that Christians of the day did not like salvery but since it could not be ended, they championed a kind attitude towards their slaves.


Now back to our original discussion . . . Why would Paul tell slaves to follow their masters orders? Because it would make the likely hood of them being treated well MUCH HIGHER. Once again . . . it is simple common sense.


Thank you all for playing, and assisting me in proving my point.