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]

And the point is that owning another person as your property for Life is wrong, according to current thinking; and in the Bible, it apparently isn't, despite them knowing in the OT and Paul that people would rather be free.

Morality has evolved quite a bit since the biblical writers put pen to paper. They obviously had little problem with people owning others as slaves particularly within the safety of their own cohort where it was clearly not accepted. Believers are now struggling with the obvious fact that we are essentially superior to the barbarian overlord known as Jehovah when it comes to morality and they are in the difficult position of having to defend him. In my opinion, people who regard the heinous practices of shunning and disfellowshipping as acts of love are hardly in a position to defend human slavery, no matter what benefits they claim may be attached.

Cult -practices such as excluding Others are certainly something to be considered, but trying to explain away slavery in the Bible is a different problem, just as excusing acts of violence in the OT. It is always interesting to see them jump through hoops trying to make what the Bible plainly says not say it because it is inconvenient to them.

[JehovahsWitness]

Your links are to evasions.

My links are extremely clear and specific, (often literally identifying an analysing each individual word). I have addressed each point with biblical and often secular references. If you would like to point out where a specific point has not been properly addressed I will be happy to look at it, but the burden of proof is on you to substantiate the above claim; until you do this, there is no reason to give it any further consideration.


JW

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

SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING

[TRANSPONDER]

I have substantiated it and explained. Many of the arguments you link are irrelevant or wrong and the differences you point up do not alter the basic fact of slavery of foreigners by Hebrews is ownership of people as property, which is chattel slavery and wrong, even if in the OT there are rules about the treatment of slaves. Moreover I challenged many of your assertions that the Hebrews were not allowed to do certain things to slaves. I do not accept your suggestion that treating foreign residents with the same rights as Hebrews applied to slaves, either Foreign or Hebrew, for that matter. Slaves are not your fellow residents.

Ball back in your court.

[JehovahsWitness]

I see no reason to believe that the foreign slaves of Hebrews could not be abused in exactly those ways - so long as they did not die within a couple of days.

Then you do well to look again; I have edited in the specific posts for your convenience.

A LIST OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HEBREWS AND THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF SLAVERY

... An African who was enslaved had no personal or private rights and was expressly the property of another person to be held, used, or abused as the owner saw fit. .... - Slavery Remembrance Day memorial lecture 2007, Dr Molefi Kete Asante

#1. The slave retained basic human rights such as the right to bodily integity. Thus the slave could not be

• beaten with impunity - post #62

• physically damaged post #210

• branded post #210

• chained post #50

• kept in a cage post #210

• used for sex post #

or ..

• murdered post #282

#2 He was protected by the the same national labour laws as everyone else . Thus the slave could not be forced to work 7 days a week post #

#3 He was viewed religiously and (since Israel was a theocracy) socially, as a human being (not a mere commodity) as evidenced by his right to worship the Hebrew God YHWH along with the freeman post #50.

#4 He was protected by the nations constitution mandate to be treated in a loving way post #251

#5 He and the right to appeal for justice under the law and expect to be heard post #206

CONCLUSION : THE above do not represent insignificant /negligible differences. On the contrary they represent the fundamentals of the human rights mankind would take millenia to establish for all. That the Hebrew slave had the above rights and protections creates a huge gulf between the abusive, impressive and unspeakably cruel system that existed during the slave trade and the humaine, balanced and dignified system under the Hebrew law.

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

SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING

[TRANSPONDER]

I see no reason to believe that the foreign slaves of Hebrews could not be abused in exactly those ways - so long as they did not die within a couple of days.

Then you do well to look again; I have edited in the specific posts for your convenience.

A LIST OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HEBREWS AND THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF SLAVERY

... An African who was enslaved had no personal or private rights and was expressly the property of another person to be held, used, or abused as the owner saw fit. .... - Slavery Remembrance Day memorial lecture 2007, Dr Molefi Kete Asante

#1. The slave retained basic human rights such as the right to bodily integity. Thus the slave could not be

• beaten with impunity - post #62

• physically damaged post #210

• branded post #210

• chained post #50

• kept in a cage post #210

• used for sex post #

or ..

• murdered post #282

#2 He was protected by the the same national labour laws as everyone else . Thus the slave could not be forced to work 7 days a week post #

#3 He was viewed religiously and (since Israel was a theocracy) socially, as a human being (not a mere commodity) as evidenced by his right to worship the Hebrew God YHWH along with the freeman post #50.

#4 He was protected by the nations constitution mandate to be treated in a loving way post #251

#5 He and the right to appeal for justice under the law and expect to be heard post #206

CONCLUSION : THE above do not represent insignificant /negligible differences. On the contrary they represent the fundamentals of the human rights mankind would take millenia to establish for all. That the Hebrew slave had the above rights and protections creates a huge gulf between the abusive, impressive and unspeakably cruel system that existed during the slave trade and the humaine, balanced and dignified system under the Hebrew law.

I have already done more work than you deserve in checking those links and debunking them or pointing out that they have been debunked, and yet you persist in linking them as though they made some point or served some purpose.


I would argue that I am justified in dismissing all of these links and citations of yours as of no value and adding nothing to the debate. If you want to make them count, post them and argue them. As of now I consider them worthless at best and deceptive (as though they were valid references) at worst.
You make the point that the slaves were not forced to work on the Sabbath. I'm quite sure they were fed Kosher food too and not allowed to wear wool and linen mixed. Not because they were protected by laws to see they were treated kindly, but to make sure that God's laws were not broken. There was no element of the slaves' welfare involved here and even if there was, it is still Lifetime ownership of a person as slave and, as chattel slavery, it is wrong. You lose again.
So here we are. The tatty old 'indentured servitude; apologetic is sunk without trace as it doesn't apply to Foreign slaves (even though Jewish slaves had to be released after the ritual 7 years, whether their debts were worked off or not (1) but non - Hebrew slaves were property for Life and could be gifted to the Children. Aside from the rule that a slave should not be beaten so as to cause the death (at least not right away) and given that this was the OT attempt to have slavery laws that YHWH would approve, it was nevertheless Chattel slavery as much as ever the Benin trade was, and no valid reason to assert that the Hebrews treated them well, when even then was benevolent Chattel slavery. Modern morals is still an improvement on that and the only excuse is that God didn't really approve but had to go along with it. In which case I ask again why God Never, Ever said 'I do not approve'. And the efforts to drag the 'Be nice' over it as a blanket will not make the case that God really said (tacitly) that slavery should cease let alone that after the 18th c it would.

Oh, and paying taxes in in no way slavery, nor living in a society than makes life a bit easier, nor does marriage have anything to do with it.

Slavery is indeed the Go To atheist apologetic along with God ordering killing, the Flood......and a good bit of the rest of the Book. And the more the Bible apologists gnaw at the trap like a passel of rats, the woise they look.

(1) quite apart from the trick of giving him a wife which the slave owner kept and if the Jewish slave elected to remain with the wife, he was the owners slave for life. And that's the Word of the Lord.

[JehovahsWitness]

You make the point that the slaves were not forced to work on the Sabbath. ..to make sure that God's laws were not broken.

Yes and that is the point; Gods laws were protective in nature and the Sabbath meant that no worker (slave or freeman) could be forced to work 7 days a week.



JW

[Difflugia]

Yes and that is the point; Gods laws were protective in nature and the Sabbath meant that no worker (slave or freeman) could be forced to work 7 days a week.

That doesn't make sense. Nobody sane executes people that work too hard to protect them from working too hard.

The laws are about ritual purity and holiness and any protective effect is coincidental. Preventing slaves from working on the Sabbath doesn't keep them from being slaves any more than preventing them from taking Yahweh's name in vain or from wearing cotton-wool blends do.

[JehovahsWitness]

Preventing slaves from working on the Sabbath doesn't keep them from being slaves ...

Did I say it did?

... the Sabbath meant that no worker (slave or freeman) could be forced to work 7 days a week.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #308]

I rather thought that was what you were trying to say. If you concede that they are still slaves (chattel slaves, owned as property for life) and Jewish law forbidding any work done on the sabbath (not out of any kindness) makes no difference to that, then it seems we are in agreement. That is if you also agree that owning people as property for life is wrong.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #308]

I rather thought that was what you were trying to say.

I was trying to say what I in fact said. The effect of that law, as far as the slaves were concerned, was as stated; it is not a matter of debate , it is a statement of fact.



JW





RELATED POSTS


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