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.

[Candle]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

Explain how owning a slave is "not moral."

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

Explain how owning a slave is "not moral."

Not owning others is simply part of my moral code. Obviously your god feels it's very differently; that it's quite alright to own other human beings. To buy male and female slaves from among the surrounding nations. Strike them with a rod as long as they don't die within a day or two. Bequeath them to one's sons. And to even sell one's daughter into slavery.


Too bad the practice has since been outlawed. Eh?

.

[Candle]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

Explain how owning a slave is "not moral."

Not owning others is simply part of my moral code. Obviously your god feels it's very differently; that it's quite alright to own other human beings. To buy male and female slaves from among the surrounding nations. Strike them with a rod as long as they don't die within a day or two. Bequeath them to one's sons. And to even sell one's daughter into slavery.


Too bad the practice has since been outlawed. Eh?

.

If a person strikes another, it is arguably immoral. That is NOT the issue.

What, specifically, about the ownership of another person is inherently immoral?

THAT is the issue.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

Explain how owning a slave is "not moral."

Not owning others is simply part of my moral code. Obviously your god feels it's very differently; that it's quite alright to own other human beings. To buy male and female slaves from among the surrounding nations. Strike them with a rod as long as they don't die within a day or two. Bequeath them to one's sons. And to even sell one's daughter into slavery.


Too bad the practice has since been outlawed. Eh?

.

If a person strikes another, it is arguably immoral. That is NOT the issue.

No, but it does point out god's sense of right and wrong (morality), and, in this case, what I consider to be his immorality. Why is god content with having others deprived of their rights and freedoms, and has no qualms about letting them be subjugated as property to the whims of an owner? Would you like to be a slave?......... Perhaps you would.

Let me ask you:

Do you believe owning another person as property to be moral?.... Why? Why not?

Do you believe that buying male and female slaves from among the surrounding nations to be moral?.... Why? Why not?

Do you believe striking a slave with a rod, as long as they don't die within a day or two, to be moral?.... Why? Why not?

Do you believe that bequeathing a slave to one's sons to be moral?.... Why? Why not?

Do you believe that selling one's daughter into slavery to be moral?.... Why? Why not?

I don't believe any of the actions I've pointed out to be good, but rather wrong. i.e. immoral.

What, specifically, about the ownership of another person is inherently immoral?

THAT is the issue.

Then it comes down to empathy. I empathize with those under the subjugation of ownership. If I understand and share the feelings of someone put under a certain state of existence to be good, then I'll consider that putting to be moral. However, if I find such a state of existence to be bad, then I'll consider the putting to be immoral.

For the slave, (s)he's been put in an undesirable state of existence. And undesirable states of being should be avoided whenever possible, which should apply to "all god's children." Slaves don't like to be subjugated; losing their freedom to the ownership of someone else, and I can empathize with that. Hence, I find such ownership to be wrong; so wrong as to be immoral. Yet, for whatever reason your god is just fine with life-long subjugation, even making up rules for how it should be carried out.

Hardly a nice guy, and IMO certainly not worth venerating and worshiping. But that's me. I prefer nice to nasty.


.

[TRANSPONDER]

Nailed it. This is the Objective basis of morality if there is one, and better than 'God wrote it down', for what is moral. It is in fact 'Written on our hearts' just as paul said. He saw it clear enough. But he didn't know about instinct, and we didn't know how instinct worked until the discovery of DNA.

Now we are coming to understand that this instinct or reciprocity (the golden rule) is evolved instinct of pack -co -operation. Though of course we have progressed from weeing over gateposts to flying flags over embassies.

[JehovahsWitness]

For the slave, (s)he's been put in an undesirable state of existence.

What is indesirable about it? You mention rights and freedoms but nobody is totally free and if some rights are inalienable does that mean that they all are?

[TRANSPONDER]

For the slave, (s)he's been put in an undesirable state of existence.

What is indesirable about it? You mention rights and freedoms but nobody is totally free and if some rights are inalienable does that mean that they all are?

That's not the point. Even if an apologist could prove that the state of being owned, provided with accommodation, food, employment (though not paid, of course) and personal satisfactions when the owner was in the mood, and the occasional whuppin' (doubtless deserved) was a small price to pay for such coddling, that would not alter the Biblical recognition that slaves did not want to be slaves but preferred to be free, both in the OT and the New. and I doubt that you are serious about trying to habilitate slave ownership or that such a loathesome, disgusting, reprehensible and vile viewpoint is one that you seriously hold. You are merely juggling arguments to try to scrape a point or two out of it.

[JehovahsWitness]

... the Biblical recognition that slaves did not want to be slaves but preferred to be free, both in the OT and the New.

Not necessarily.

EXODUS. 21:5, 6

“If the slave should insistently say, ‘I really love my master, my wife and my sons; ‘ I do not want to go out as one set free,’ then his master must bring him near to the true God and must bring him up against the door or the doorpost; and his master must pierce his ear through with an awl, and he must be his slave to time indefinite.”​

RELATED POSTS


Did Jesus call for his disciples to sell themselves into slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1081853#p1081853

[Miles]

For the slave, (s)he's been put in an undesirable state of existence.

What is indesirable about it?

Hmmm. Can't think of a thing, particularly when one thinks of all the perks of slavery.

Like, free ocean cruises




Tattoos at no cost




Your own home


Well . . . . you might have to share it with another family or two.


Field trips in the great outdoors





Dietary aids





Free education: Lesson 12: "How To Behave And Why"





Hanging out with the fam. All 16 of them.





And sometimes just hangin'

.

[POI]

... the Biblical recognition that slaves did not want to be slaves but preferred to be free, both in the OT and the New.

Not necessarily.

EXODUS. 21:5, 6

“If the slave should insistently say, ‘I really love my master, my wife and my sons; ‘ I do not want to go out as one set free,’ then his master must bring him near to the true God and must bring him up against the door or the doorpost; and his master must pierce his ear through with an awl, and he must be his slave to time indefinite.”​

"4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."

I sincerely doubt a male slave would want to abandon his family, which is not allowed to go free from enslavement. If this is the only situation you can locate, then you have lost the argument (again).