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.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #417]

It's like abolishing gravity.

You are presenting a false analogy. You are comparing a "moral law" to a "physical law". Condoning/rejecting (theft, lying, trespassing, slavery, etc) is NOT equal to condoning/rejecting (motion, energy, mass, gravity, etc).

Thus, I ask again, unanswered....

Since you seem to agree that all slavery is bad, then why doesn't God?

Even God had to be our servant in order to rescue us.

No He didn't. God apparently answers to no one. God just seems to be a-okay with slavery -- (via Leviticus 25 , Exodus 21, etc...).

All we get to do is choose our master. God or Satan.

This response is as arbitrary as asking me if I'm going to side with Superman or Lex Luthor.

Second request:

Was <slavery> laws left vague purposefully, or, were the Bible writer(s) just ignorant?

[Purple Knight]

It is far from irrelevant . It is the basis of what is slavery and what is not. Whether one person is owned as property for life or not. What is irrelevant actually is how that person gets treated.

Then we disagree on a fundamental level.

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose we might. after all, some disagree with the commandment God makes about coveting ,which they think is negation of the inspiration for any efforts of people to better themselves.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #417]

It's like abolishing gravity. Even God had to be our servant in order to rescue us.

From his own wrath, of which, we're still under threat.

At the Uvalde school shooting the police in effect said we will not be a slave to those children and will not serve them. Now they live with the shame.

I'd agree they were slaves to their own cowardice.

All we get to do is choose our master. God or Satan.

Considering neither one of those two can be shown to exist beyond mere speculation, those choices are as empty as the claims on which they're predicated.

As for me, I'm happy being a slave to bacon breakfasts and Monster coffees.

I just think that someone equating the ownershp of other persons as property being equating with my obsession with strong coffee is missing the point, quite aside from trying to explain away a problem in the Bible, which always make me doubt the integrity of such apologetics.