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]

... I explained why slavery was the same - owning people as property.

And I explained the differences - retention of rights.

... I recall only that you tried to argue that a note on Chattel slavery was referring to American slavery and you tried to argue that only American slavery was chattel slavery.

You recall incorrectly; I made no such argument.


RELATED POSTS

What was CHATTEL slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1079718#p1079718

Was chattel slavery as practiced under the American slave trade system, the same as the lifelong slavery legilsated in ancient Israel?
viewtopic.php?p=1079902#p1079902

Were foreign slaves considered chattel under the Hebrew system?
viewtopic.php?p=1079301#p1079301

What did being a man's "property" mean to the ancient Hebrews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p814401

Is the slavery that existed under bible law comparable to the European & American slave trade?[regulations]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p811779

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

SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING

I think you did #255 which you link

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 7:53 am
...The rules on slavery plainly show that for Non Hebrews, it was lifetime ownership of a person - chattel slavery, just as much as it was for Africans transported to the Americas.

(you replied) While the Hebrew system did legislate lifetime ownership of foreign slaves, it differed from the American slave system on a number of levels and is thus not comparable.

The rebuttal I made was that despite some differences it was Chattel slavery - lifetime ownership of another person.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think you did #255 which you link

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 7:53 am
...The rules on slavery plainly show that for Non Hebrews, it was lifetime ownership of a person - chattel slavery, just as much as it was for Africans transported to the Americas.


(you replied) While the Hebrew system did legislate lifetime ownership of foreign slaves, it differed from the American slave system on a number of levels and is thus not comparable.

My reply was a statement of fact and entirely accurate.

The rebuttal I made was that despite some differences it was Chattel slavery ...

So you recognise there were "some differences" ; if there were some differences they could not at the same time also be an exact parallel . ..

Thank you. That is an exact parallel of what Hebrew ownership of non - Hebrew slaves was.

So which is it ? an exact parallel or slavery with differences? My point is that differences to which you allude, were not insignificant.



CHATTEL SLAVERY


source: https://aaregistry.org/story/chattel-sl ... efinition/

One reason I insist on speaking of the enslavement of Africans as chattel slavery rather than slavery is because in the English language it is possible to confuse a certain idea of servitude with 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. Imagine the hell of this predicament and you are on the edge of the nightmare of chattel slavery. - Slavery Remembrance Day memorial lecture 2007, Dr Molefi Kete Asante

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #292]

You are still strawmanning it. The differences are irrelevant. I don't know what the Hebrews used their slaves for but it wasn't picking cottom or cutting sugar -cane. That is irrelevant to the basic that both involved taking people as property for life. Chattel slavery. It is also irrelevant whether one had some legal (or religious) limits on what you could do to your slaves and one didn't, apart from you don't waste property you paid good money for. The basic is still ownership of another person as property for Life. Chattel slavery.

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.

[JehovahsWitness]

The differences are irrelevant

Well let us see, what "differences" were you alluding to? If you list them we can analyse the list and see if your list is complete and then assess if they were or were not irrelevant.

I don't know what the Hebrews used their slaves for but it wasn't picking cottom or cutting sugar -cane.

Okay so let us not make a list of the differences you don't know, let's just stick to the differences you DO know. So, when you stated there were {quote} "some differences" what did you have in mind?

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

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

[TRANSPONDER]

Sorry, but you are a hoot.

If you think that Slavery of foreigners for life in Iron age Israel and slavery for life in the 16th -19th centuries in the West were NOT the same, you list the differences, You. You. You, not me. Don't you dare try to push the burden of proof onto Me. Or I will taunt you some more.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

For more detailed analysis of the points above see RELATED POSTS below:

Was chattel slavery as practiced under the American slave trade system, the same as the lifelong slavery legilsated in ancient Israel?
viewtopic.php?p=1079902#p1079902

Were foreign slaves considered chattel under the Hebrew system?
viewtopic.php?p=1079301#p1079301

What did being a man's "property" mean to the ancient Hebrews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p814401

Is the slavery that existed under bible law comparable to the European & American slave trade?[regulations]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p811779

Can the differences between the European & American slave trade system and slavery under the HEBREW system be LISTED?
viewtopic.php?p=1080185#p1080185

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

SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING

[JehovahsWitness]

If you think that Slavery of foreigners for life in Iron age Israel and slavery for life in the 16th -19th centuries in the West were NOT the same ...

But you think that too ... That is unless the word "differences" has some alternative meaning when you use it.

The differences are irrelevant.

What were the "irrelevant differences" you refer to?

... you list the differences...

See above post #296

...You. You. You, not me.

Why? Why? Why not you? You clearly state that there are differences between the 17th Century and the ancient Hebrew system but when I ask you what they were, you claim you do not have to provide any proof so their significance can be assessed ? **I** have to support what I say with facts but when you make a claim - you don't?!

.. not me.

.. not me.

.. not me.

[brunumb]

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

• physically damaged

• branded

• chained

• kept in a cage

• used for sex

or ..

• murdered

#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

#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.

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

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

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.

For more detailed analysis of the points above see RELATED POSTS below:

Was chattel slavery as practiced under the American slave trade system, the same as the lifelong slavery legilsated in ancient Israel?
viewtopic.php?p=1079902#p1079902

Were foreign slaves considered chattel under the Hebrew system?
viewtopic.php?p=1079301#p1079301

What did being a man's "property" mean to the ancient Hebrews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p814401

Is the slavery that existed under bible law comparable to the European & American slave trade?[regulations]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p811779

That's good. You pointed up the differences. 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. Would you care to point out the OT passages that said they could not be beaten with impunity [if they didn't die in a couple of days], physically damaged; branded, chained[, kept in a cage or used for sex? Murdered...well, who murdered slaves they'd paid for and were property? I recall that if they put out an eye or broke a jaw they had to let them go, though.

However, even given those restrictions, which probably just incurred a fine, how does that alter both kinds of ownership of slaves being ownership of people as property, even if the rules differed even more markedly than you argue? They are both still chattel slavery even if the Hebrew one tries to have some rules about it, Last i heard, ownership of persons as property was wrong even if you gave them creamed chicken and silk cushions.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you think that Slavery of foreigners for life in Iron age Israel and slavery for life in the 16th -19th centuries in the West were NOT the same ...

But you think that too ... That is unless the word "differences" has some alternative meaning when you use it.

The differences are irrelevant.

What were the "irrelevant differences" you refer to?

... you list the differences...

See above post #296

...You. You. You, not me.

Why? Why? Why not you? You clearly state that there are differences between the 17th Century and the ancient Hebrew system but when I ask you what they were, you claim you do not have to provide any proof so their significance can be assessed ? **I** have to support what I say with facts but when you make a claim - you don't?!

.. not me.

.. not me.

.. not me.

Because you are the one claiming that there are differences between Hebrew slavery of non Hebrews and Atlantic slavery. Thus the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim, not me to do your work for you.

Your links are to evasions. Foreign slaves were separated from their homes and families as much as any Transatlantic slave, and the status as women as property only raises the question of whether they were slaves, too, not shows that chattel slaves (property) were not slaves.