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]

Okay? Did I respond to it?

If you don't know I can't really help you. May I suggest if you are not sure you read back over your posts.

JW

Oh, but you can help plenty.... If you say you answered it, this must also mean you know exactly where you answered it? If so, do you mind sharing? I will then gladly offer my already given counter-response, and/or augmented new response

And BTW, if you know I already spoke about the silence, then your prior response about 'silence' was nothing but a deflector.

[JehovahsWitness]

Oh, but you can help plenty.... If you say you answered it, this must also mean you know exactly where you answered it? If so, do you mind sharing? I will then gladly offer my already given counter-response, and/or augmented new response

And BTW, if you know I already spoke about the silence, then your prior response about 'silence' was nothing but a deflector.

Please take note of the following...

Again, I'm not going to play 'where's Waldo'. If you have a specific rebuttal, please do so; or cut/paste what you feel is relevant. This thread is getting too long to simply hunt for stuff.

My sentiments exactly.




JW

[POI]

You seem confused by that response. Allow me to spell it out. I'm asking you to locate and cut/paste your OWN responses, not MINE I'll find mine. But I'm first asking what your response was, and where it was? And yes, the thread is getting long. If I do not wish to search for one of my responses, it is sometimes much faster for me to respond to the same question again.

Capeesh?

So if you know what you said, just say it. Responding back with, "I already answered that", does very little. I can say that too.....

1. So please, what was your response to the initial debate question; as it pertains to (why isn't 'God's Word' simply silent on the topic of slavery)?

2. Further, if you know I already asked this question, why the heck would you accuse me of a fallacy I never committed? Is it because you have no real response?

[JehovahsWitness]

1. So please, what was your response to the initial debate question...?

Post #21

Post #11

[POI]

1. So please, what was your response to the initial debate question...?

Post #21

Post #11

Okay, so I looked through some posts. Your position, as to why the Bible mentions slavery, but does not abolish slavery, is because -- (taken from post 28)?:

* Jesus was not [intially] here to govern

* Slavery, even opporessive slavery, is a part of human rulership and God has authorised humans to self govern."

* " He didn't disagree [with the Hebrew system of slavery]. Thus, there would be nothing here for Him to regulate".

[JehovahsWitness]

Also, the 'golden rule', as we agree, was already in place in Lev. 19:18. But like I've been saying, differing rules exist between the (free vs slave). ...

Post #61

[POI]

Also, the 'golden rule', as we agree, was already in place in Lev. 19:18. But like I've been saying, differing rules exist between the (free vs slave). ...

Post #61

Post #67

[JehovahsWitness]

LEVITICUS 24:22

You are to have the same standard of law for the foreign resident and the native; for I am the LORD your God.'"

NUMBERS 15:16
16 There should be one law and one judicial decision for you and for the foreigner who is residing with you.’

These verses do not address my observation. I stated there looks to possibly be differing laws between (the free vs. the enslaved).

I understand that, and there were indeed various specific laws that applied to different catagories of people; but there was "one law" as in a single penal code by which all citizens should abide. Thus, the existence of various specific laws for women (single or married) , men children ... does not negate the fact that the Mosaic law specifically mandates love for one's neighbour without qualifier. Thus there is no legal basis to conclude foreigners were exclude from this particular law.

An argument from silence [it doesn't specifically say "including foreigners" so it must mean excluding foreigners ] is a legal absurdity (for a more detailed analysis of arguing from silence see post #186

[POI]

LEVITICUS 24:22

You are to have the same standard of law for the foreign resident and the native; for I am the LORD your God.'"

NUMBERS 15:16
16 There should be one law and one judicial decision for you and for the foreigner who is residing with you.’

These verses do not address my observation. I stated there looks to possibly be differing laws between (the free vs. the enslaved).

I understand that, and there were indeed laws that applied to different catagories of people.

Noted, yes. But the rules, as applied in Exodus 21 state (no punishment) is to be issued to the slave master if the slave does not die from the beating or loose eyes/teeth. So I must ask... Why NO punishment for beating them, as long as they recover? Well, this is already answered. They are the master's property/money. A free person is not owned by some other human, as property or money. If a free man beats another free man, and they recover, is no punishment applied here too? I doubt it. So yes, we have many differing standards, it seems. If you are deemed someone else money/property, no 'justice' is applied towards the master for his beatings of the deemed slave. Immunity and impunity are instructed by God.

Though this seems like a "useful exercise", or a productive exchange, seems as though I'm instead actually arguing against a red herring or strawman argument here... You tell me? Is your argument more-so in line with A) or B)?:

A) Consists in diverting attention from the real issue, by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first

B) Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack

Or maybe it's a little of both?

That however that does not negate the fact that the Mosaic law specifically mandates love for one's neighbour

And yet, there is no silence on the topic here. 'Slavery' is okay, via the Bible.

and there is no attached qualifier.[/color] so there is no legal basis to conclude foreigners were excluded from this particular law.

My argument, which was kind of addressed above, is that differing laws exist between (the enslaved VS the free). And as you acknowledged, in a backdoor sorta way, they are indeed different. So thanks for that, I guess...

[JehovahsWitness]

If a free man beats another free man, and they recover, is no punishment applied here too? I doubt it.

EXODUS 21:18 19

If men are quarreling and one strikes the other with a stone or a fist, and he does not die but is confined to bed, then the one who struck him shall go unpunished, as long as the other can get up and walk around outside with his staff. Nevertheless, he must compensate the man for his lost work and see that he is completely healed

The principle of bodily integrity was universal as was that of compensation for injury. Thus whether slave or freeman, once INJURY was proved compensation was mandetory. And whether slave or freeman, if death was unintentional the death penalty was not imposed.