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]

the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, to expose, denounce, or deride the folly of institutions, people, or social structures

Okay Well if you could hold off on the sarcasm and actually answer the question.

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

What is indesirable about it?

[TRANSPONDER]

Probably the biggest issue with slavery is the same as socialism - the society sees no reason to innovate or maximise production because you can just use more slaves.

I'm sure you don't really mean to say that the major problem with slavery is not about moral evils or the abrogation of human rights, but that it puts the brakes on innovation.

[Wootah]

Probably the biggest issue with slavery is the same as socialism - the society sees no reason to innovate or maximise production because you can just use more slaves.

I'm sure you don't really mean to say that the major problem with slavery is not about moral evils or the abrogation of human rights, but that it puts the brakes on innovation.

Well, it becomes a self defeater for the slave owners in the long run. Socialism is the far greater evil, killed millions more, but somehow because of the speck in your eye perhaps you ignored the log?

[TRANSPONDER]

Probably the biggest issue with slavery is the same as socialism - the society sees no reason to innovate or maximise production because you can just use more slaves.

I'm sure you don't really mean to say that the major problem with slavery is not about moral evils or the abrogation of human rights, but that it puts the brakes on innovation.

Well, it becomes a self defeater for the slave owners in the long run. Socialism is the far greater evil, killed millions more, but somehow because of the speck in your eye perhaps you ignored the log?

No. Slave ownership has always been profitable and very convenient. The reason slavery was stopped was on moral, not on economic or even political grounds. Pointing at socialism seems to me to be a red herring. Perhaps because of a log there you fail; to see clearly that not only is slavery wrong, but it cannot be made economically undesirable rather than morally unacceptable. And your obsession with bashing 'Socialism' seems to be a problem for you that obscures all your reasoning.

[Candle]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

Explain how owning a slave is "not moral."

It is a violation of our free will for starters.

So is going to prison. Is incarceration immoral?

Perhaps an examination of the circumstances that result in slavery is in order.

You mean like invading a community, killing the inhabitants but keeping some people as your own personal property?

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.

Of course, any Hebrew could sell himself to anyone else for 7 years. If the state of being owned is so terrible, why would anyone do it?

Still, I await your answer to my last question.

[Difflugia]

Of course, any Hebrew could sell himself to anyone else for 7 years. If the state of being owned is so terrible, why would anyone do it?

The fact that someone is vulnerable to exploitation doesn't make exploitation acceptable.

When your argument that something is OK is that things could be worse, it's probably a safe bet that you're on the wrong side.

[Candle]

Of course, any Hebrew could sell himself to anyone else for 7 years. If the state of being owned is so terrible, why would anyone do it?

The fact that someone is vulnerable to exploitation doesn't make exploitation acceptable.

When your argument that something is OK is that things could be worse, it's probably a safe bet that you're on the wrong side.

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Did I already get this apologetic of evasion from you or someone else?

Our complex society is actually pretty darn good. What we get is a system of trade -off agreements that we devised ourselves. We are in essence slaves to existence, since we have to feed. That's essentially it - we need to eat to go on living. Slavery of a kind, you might say, but anyone who overcomes their will to live, and sees topping themselves as a way of opting out of all that work and effort, fine by me. We aren't likely to run short of Human beans just yet.

So when someone who was useless at hunting but good at making bows and spears and someone who couldn't fashion an arrow any better than his dog but was smack dab brilliant at using them to bring down mammoths, saw a convenient arrangement, both were saved unnecessary labour. Complex society now means that we have more leisure time than anyone back in the 19th c could have dreamed of let alone the 19th c B.C. And anyone who wants to moan about having to work for a living and compares it to slavery gets no sympathy for me, or much respect.

So you can probably guess what I think of someone who tries to make slavery (And we mean slavery without consent, for life, which is what Hebrews did to non -Hebrew slaves) no different really, from having to put in a stint at the car wash in xchange for the price of a Pizza and 4 -pack with retirement at 70 to look forward to.

[Difflugia]

Every employee in the world is exploited to one degree or another.

Yes.

Everyone who eats and is not independently wealthy is subject to exploitation.

Yes.

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.

Yes.

The question is about the morality of owning another person.

Yes. In the same way you haven't supported the morality of exploiting employees, you also haven't supported the morality of exploting slaves.

So far, all the arguments are based on abuse.

Or your straw man characterization of the arguments, anyway.

If you are abused, you didn't need to be owned for that to be a problem.

That's why it's effective as a straw man.

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

If the person one owns is "the most powerful person in the country," what does ownership even mean? You've now moved from a straw man onto equivocation.

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

The insistence that we find value in the level of abstraction that you want to discuss isn't anyone's problem but yours. It's like trying to argue that war per se isn't a problem because it doesn't necessarily involve things like killing people, atrocities, and economic devastation.

So, how's this? Slavery isn't bad if the slave is afforded all of the personal agency and human rights protections of every free person.

[Miles]

the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, to expose, denounce, or deride the folly of institutions, people, or social structures

Okay Well if you could hold off on the sarcasm and actually answer the question.

Gee, I thought capturing and transporting slaves like packed sardines across the ocean; whipping them until it raised huge permanent welts across their backs; crowding them together in small, windowless, huts; chaining them together to make them march to wherever; making them wear head gear that prevented them from eating; whipping and beating them; encouraging them to have large families so as to replenish the slave population; and hanging them without benefit of a legal trial would all be enough answer to your question: how is the ownership of others (slavery) inherently bad?

However, if this isn't enough, simply consider that slavery strips the slave of the dignity and freedom others enjoy, and for no other reason than it's something owners can do.

You're going to pack yourselves into the boat like sardines. Why? because I say so.
You're getting a whipping boy. Why? because I say so.
You're going to live with others in a small windowless hut. Why? because I say so.
You're going on a march chained to other slaves. Why? because I say so.
You're going to wear this head gear to prevent you from eating. Why? because I say so.
You're going to get a whipping or beating. Why? because I say so.
You're going to have huge families. Why? because I say so.
You're going hang until you're dead. Why? because I say so.

"Moreover, the freedom to choose is not yours. EVER."

And you, JehovahsWitness, fail to see anything inherently wrong with owning others as property (slavery). Must be some kind of Christian ethic at work here. Ah yes:

.................................... "Do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."


.