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.

[JehovahsWitness]

Gee, I thought capturing and transporting slaves like packed sardines across the ocean...

So are you saying that is not a slave unless one has been shipped, chained and abused?

As candle put it so succintly ...

Everything about what you claim is immoral is based on abuse, not ownership.

JW

[Purple Knight]

Every employee in the world is exploited to one degree or another. Everyone who eats and is not independently wealthy is subject to exploitation. The boss tells tells his employee when he has to work, when he can leave, if he gets a day off or if he gets insurance as part of his package.

The question is about the morality of owning another person. So far, all the arguments are based on abuse. If you are abused, you didn't need to be owned for that to be a problem.

If the person you own is the most powerful person in the country, why is owning him immoral?

It is purely a legal distinction. For some reason, no one here can analyze it as such.

I can and I have. See?

Slavery being something specific is fine. I say it's when one person is forced to labour for another.

When definitions break down and become non-useful is when you uncouple them from describing reality and instead use them to describe what something technically counts as in some system that has no bearing on reality. I can own the Queen of England on paper, I can agree with my fellows that I own the Queen of England, and it does factually nothing to her until I start actually doing things to her.

If a person is beaten and whipped then it's wrong whether he submitted to it "voluntarily" through a contract he signed, or not. Only a libertarian will actually defend the idea that what's on paper is what matters, morally, and that if no piece of paper exists that says I own you, I can exploit you however I see fit and it doesn't count as slavery. I see this as kind of a mean statement but it needs to be made: Everyone but the libertarian is either themselves confused or is obfuscating to confuse others.

What matters is what I can and cannot do to you, in reality, not on paper. I can make a piece of paper that says I own you right now. It does nothing.

[Purple Knight]

Gee, I thought capturing and transporting slaves like packed sardines across the ocean...

So are you saying that is not a slave unless one has been shipped, chained and abused?

As candle put it so succintly ...

Everything about what you claim is immoral is based on abuse, not ownership.

I think what happened is that American slavery was such a barbaric and horrific institution, and because it happened to be a legal institution, people aren't uncoupling that from the horror and, in the collective consciousness, the idea of slavery as an institution means you will have that horror, and because people are illogical and can't do contraposition right, they also assume that you can't have those horrors unless you have institutional slavery.

That said, we need to not have institutional slavery. Whether the Hebrews abused their slaves or not, equality is the desirable condition.

[Miles]

Gee, I thought capturing and transporting slaves like packed sardines across the ocean...

So are you saying that is not a slave unless one has been shipped, chained and abused?

OMG, after all I said this is what you choose to reply to!!! Obviously you're running out of reasons to defend slavery, although I don't blame you. There isn't much to work with. So come on over to the other side. Muahaha! The side where reason and rational understanding reign.

You won't be sorry. I promise.

............................................




.

[JehovahsWitness]

...As candle put it so succintly ...

Everything about what you claim is immoral is based on abuse, not ownership.

I think what happened is that American slavery was such a barbaric and horrific institution, and because it happened to be a legal institution, people aren't uncoupling that from the horror and, in the collective consciousness, the idea of slavery as an institution means you will have that horror, and because people are illogical and can't do contraposition right, they also assume that you can't have those horrors unless you have institutional slavery.

So I see. It is proving to be an exercise in futility to try and get people to seperate slavery from abuse. I supposed that I was just encountering dogged determination to win an argument, but perhaps I do better to acknowledge the deep seated trauma in the collective psyche caused by the 17th and 18th century slave trade, especially for Americans.

I haven't taken kindly to all the on forum hysteria and virtue signalling but I suppose it is to be expected when emotion elbows out reason. I can't say I accept it as an excuse but I can see why it has proven so difficult and shocking for some to suggest one can exist without the other.

Thank you for the timely reminder Knight,


Regards,

JW





RELATED POSTS

Isn't slavery automatically abusive and thus morally objectionable?
viewtopic.php?p=1080087#p1080087

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

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

[brunumb]

That's what war is. Two nations at war invade each other when the opportunity presents itself. Everyone could be killed. Or, we can end this conflict by capturing prisoners of war and putting them to work for us.

So we end a war after killings as many as we can then capturing the leftovers to keep as slaves. This just gets worse and worse.

[TRANSPONDER]

...As candle put it so succintly ...

Everything about what you claim is immoral is based on abuse, not ownership.

I think what happened is that American slavery was such a barbaric and horrific institution, and because it happened to be a legal institution, people aren't uncoupling that from the horror and, in the collective consciousness, the idea of slavery as an institution means you will have that horror, and because people are illogical and can't do contraposition right, they also assume that you can't have those horrors unless you have institutional slavery.

So I see. It is proving to be an exercise in futility to try and get people to seperate slavery from abuse. I supposed that I was just encountering dogged determination to win an argument, but perhaps I do better to acknowledge the deep seated trauma in the collective psyche caused by the 17th and 18th century slave trade, especially for Americans.

I haven't taken kindly to all the on forum hysteria and virtue signalling but I suppose it is to be expected when emotion elbows out reason. I can't say I accept it as an excuse but I can see why it has proven so difficult and shocking for some to suggest one can exist without the other.

Thank you for the timely reminder Knight,


Regards,

JW

What's really going on - as we can all see - is to pull some tricks. Just as you tied to make out that if one wasn't taken to America, it was not slavery. Now you are persisting with the lark you tried with me - that if one wasn't shipped, chained and abused, it wasn't slavery. If it is slavery of foreigners one is generally 'shipped' though not necessarily by sea. They needn't be chained nor abused. Though the owner can do as they like with them, even bearing in mind some rules that Leviticus put in place. As I said, they were trying to make rules that seemed reasonable to them.

But the fact remains that it is a person removed from their home and family, treated as property and without freedom to run their own life. This is chattel slavery and your efforts to make out that it isn't does your case no good nor you nor your religion any credit.

Of course slavery of fellow Jews was chattel slavery while it lasted, which could be a lifetime if the slave was given a wife and he elected to stay. It is just that rule that Hebrews must be released after 7 years that enables it to be passed off as some kind of welfare for the financially embarrassed. But that's not the case for foreign slaves, even if there is a rule that beating to death goes unpunished if the death isn't immediate.

This has all been said, but I have to set it out again all the time you try these ploys such as trying to push a strawman of chattel slavery on us to pretend that we are saying that if it isn't being transported to America in chains, it isn't slavery.

Roman slaves weren't shipped to America, but chattel slaves they definitely were, even if they could become rich and influential. They still desired to become freedmen. They knew the difference, which apparently you pretend not to.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #344]

Again you aren't seeing clearly. Yes the slave owner is making money etc but they end up losing a bigger race.

Capitalist nations love freedom by definition and generate more ideas and innovation and win long term over slavery based nations.

I make all this as an aside to the general topic.

[JehovahsWitness]

...you tied to make out that if one wasn't taken to America, it was not slavery.

That is ludicrous, I have done no such thing.

Your link above was an article specifically related to American chattel -slavery so of course it related to the enslavement of Africans.

[JehovahsWitness]

That said, we need to not have institutional slavery. Whether the Hebrews abused their slaves or not, equality is the desirable condition.

Possibly, but is allowing that which is less than "the desirable condition" morally reprehensible or even always inadvisable?

Being able bodied is generally considered "the desirable condition" , so... what should we do about the physically handicapped? Arguably, from a physchological point of view, being raised by two loving parents is "the desirable condition" for children , yet most societies allow for divorce.

As I have pointed out, on a spiritual level, the Hebrew system recognised that all humans have certain inalienable god-given rights and as such were all equal in the eyes of God. That fact could coexist with allowing (for good reason) institutional slavery because the right to be free from all authority, was NOT (and is not) one of those rights. Ideally slavery itself would not have been necessary but I would no more call it a necessary "evil" than are facilitiies for physically handicapped.


JW