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]

But what you said did not say anything. It is saying that the Commandments obliged the slave owners to not have the slaves work on a Sabbath. So what? I refuted any argument that this was done out of kindness or that it makes slavery not wrong. Not that you said that was what you were trying to say because what you actually did say said nothing.

I wish i had pound sterling for every time I find myself saying this, but wriggling and evasion does not in fact win you anything, even if it scraped you a cheap point, but just makes you and your religion look bad.

[TRANSPONDER]

Damn .... sorry -replying to #301

[Difflugia]

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

The 'Humpty fallacy' is one i come across quite a lot. In fact it is (1) equivication in a more impudent form - on a former board, one anti atheist 'agnostic' tried to debunk atheism by pointing to a Websers definition of God "A thing of supreme importance". Well things of supreme importance existed, so God existed.

"But (we screamed) "that just a later definition; the one we all use is an invisible Cosmic mind which may or may not care a damn about us."

"Well" He actually said, "I use the term the way I want to and I don't care about anyone else and how they use it." I won't go into the denial of how he made himself look ridiculous and i got the inkling of 'Wind up an atheist for Jesus' (or just because they hate atheists).

P.s I suspect that Dodgson could not suppose that Humpty was making a valid argument, but was well aware of the logical fallacy (equivocation) that Humpty was doing, the answer being "You can use whatever coded language you like, but if nobody understand you, that's your fault, not theirs." But then that can cue another Rhetorical trick - speaking confused nonsense and then pretending it means something but the opposition is too stupid or ignorant to understand it (The Chophra gambit).

(1) like 'the skeptics denied powered flight' which is actually the Black Swan fallacy. It is logically correct to question claims before they are verified. Even though science -bashers try to make science look denialist by referring to claims that we now know are true. But, if we did what the Bible -pushers want (accept claims without good evidence) we'd have accepted cold fusion when it was not true.

[Difflugia]

P.s I suspect that Dodgson could not suppose that Humpty was making a valid argument, but was well aware of the logical fallacy (equivocation) that Humpty was doing, the answer being "You can use whatever coded language you like, but if nobody understand you, that's your fault, not theirs." But then that can cue another Rhetorical trick - speaking confused nonsense and then pretending it means something but the opposition is too stupid or ignorant to understand it (The Chophra gambit).

It's pretty clear in context that Humpty's being lampooned.

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree, but when I read it as a kid, I thought that Humpty was shown as being clever, subverting expectations and upsetting all our too easily accepted beliefs. It wasn't until Online atheism, farrell Till and 'Positive atheism' that I became aware of critical thinking and logical fallacies and realised that Dodgson was having a bit of fun with us all.

[JehovahsWitness]

That is if you also agree that owning people as property for life is wrong.

No, I cannot say that as I do not believe the notion is universally understood to mean the same thing nor do I believe that the biblical notion of "property" is wrong at all.



JW

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't care what you believe, nor for your denial of what 'Property' (people owned as) means. Everyone else who is not blinded by denial of anything but Faith in their own beliefs will clearly understand what slavery of people is, and, once it is demonstrated that was what ownership of foreign slaves was in OT times, they will understand what the problem is with claiming that God is Good, in terms of the actions of the god of the OT.

Your denial and efforts to rewrite what the Bible means or says will only hurt your case, not ours. Of course they may buy into what you post, so you go ahead. I'm just posting rebuttals as best I can. people have to decide who has the best case. That's really the way it has to be.

[JehovahsWitness]

That is if you also agree that owning people as property for life is wrong.

No, I cannot say that as I do not believe the notion is universally understood to mean the same thing nor do I believe that the biblical notion of "property" is wrong at all.

I don't care what you believe...

I dont recall asking you TO care, you addressed me and I responded. I rarely attempt to debate emotions as, more often than not in my experience, that tends to cloud logical discourse.




JW

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

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

[TRANSPONDER]

I didn't ask you to care either, though it would be nice if you accepted that the Bible actually means what it says. But, as always, it is up to the Browsers to decide which is the better case. The trump card trick of religion is to hope that the browsers never get to see our case.