- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Tim,
I believe you are correct that scripture accepts, perhaps suffers, the existence of slavery but I would go further and point out that it attemts to regulate it to reduce the abuses that occur under it.
As I stated earlier I cannot see as slavery itself is so wrong as the abuses of others that seemed to epidemic under it.
I am still of the opinion though that we are off topic since the actual question is whether slavery is wrong or not.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 03 2010,11:02) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 03 2010,08:33) francis, Instead of attacking Stu, why don't you address the opening post of this thread?
francis just brought some life back to your thread,
lets not complain,francis did a good job
Did a good job of what? Making an off-topic comment that basically boils down to deliberately taking Stu's general statement to a ridiculous extreme?As for reviving the thread, the first time through already demonstrated that Christians have no answer to the questions posed.
There's another thread though that could use revival, one that was almost directly addressed to you (see here).
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 03 2010,16:45) Tim, I believe you are correct that scripture accepts, perhaps suffers, the existence of slavery but I would go further and point out that it attemts to regulate it to reduce the abuses that occur under it.
As I stated earlier I cannot see as slavery itself is so wrong as the abuses of others that seemed to epidemic under it.
I am still of the opinion though that we are off topic since the actual question is whether slavery is wrong or not.
Did you read the first post in this thread? If not, how can you accuse TimothyVI of being off-topic?WhatIsTrue,
I did not read the first point but assumed the thread title addressed the topic of the thread and the prohibition of this forum from including doctrines from scripture holds. It appears I am mistaken.
To address that post I will point out you misinterpreted the Exodus 21:20 which is regulating the practice of slavery. When interpreting scripture you must always remember that a passage is part of the whole word of God. In this case the Law also states to love your neighbor as yourself and that obvious includes slaves.
It is true that the law considered that a slave owner had the right to discipline their own slave. The Law also determines what is cruel and unusual discipline based on the results of the discipline. The decision God reached was that if a slave lived over two days after being beat then their death was not directly the result of being beat and thus the owner was innocent of causing it.
This is a common process with legal systems as they define applicable principles for determining guilt and innocence.
None of this answers the question whether slavery is good or evil. To determine that I must determine if the Law of love you neighbor as yourself is violated. I really do not see how it is directly violated by slavery. Slavery is basically an employment contract that the slave can dissolve by successfully rebelling, dying, or by other means depending on the situation. I certainly see how it can be misused to abuse a slave.
Scripture does condemn men-stealers which I believe are unlawful slave-takers, 1 Timothy 1:10. That would cover those who kidnapped Africans or others. I do not believe it covered prisoners of war or convicts that were enslaved.
Quote t8
Does the bible condone slavery? If yes, where?Tim
I don't know if condone is the correct word but it certainly appears to accept the institution of slavery.Maybe neither “condone” nor “accept” are the correct words to use. Maybe the word is “tolerate”?
Just as God did not “condone” nor really “accept” divorce, He appears instead to have “tolerated” divorce because of man's hard heart. Maybe that is what God is doing with slavery… tolerating it as He tolerated divorce.
Other words which might be correct to use: endure… unenthusiastically recognize…. bear with…. grudgingly put up with, etc..
Just wondering outloud.
FrancisFrancais,
The word “suffer” is probably a better word to give the idea of what you meant and not “tolerate”. In our U.S. culture we tend to use “tolerate” to mean “respect what we disagree with” though it can mean “to endure” as you intend.
The simple fact is that God had no reservations against telling people all of the things that they
should not do. And yet he never said anything about not owning slaves.Why would he just tolerate, suffer,condone, accept or otherwise do anything other
than say thou shalt not own slaves?Owning another person as property is just plain wrong!!!!!!!!!
Tim
Tim
Jesus taught that when your enemy slaps your left check, give him your right.
In some sense if you didn't like Jesus you could make the argument that he condoned being abused.
But I think the point that is suppose to be drawn is that we are not to fight back and give cause to retaliate.
Rather by being nice, you can make your enemy feel bad about their actions.Sure, in a perfect world, God wouldn't have to tolerate people being violent toward others.
Now for the issue of slavery. It is part of this world system, and God is giving advice on how to live within that world system.
The real heart of God on slavery is to look at the Kingdom of Heaven. Are their masters and slaves in Heaven?
I guess you could say no and you could say yes. It is true that we are to be slaves to Jesus Christ. But he is a good master and he provides for us so it is really a privilege that he is our master. He is the good shepherd after all, and he laid his life down for us.
Now in case you think this whole master situation is wrong, I remind you to think of the time you were in school. We had a school master, perhaps in your culture you call him/her the principle?
Anyway, life is a hierarchy whether we like it or not. We have parents who have/had authority over us. We have the law and the people who keep the law. We have a boss, a manager, tax man, etc.
In the case of masters and slaves. The idea probably gets a bad rap because many masters were cruel to their slaves. But a good master was a blessing. If you had no job, and were hungry, working for a good master was probably a good thing because they looked after you. It was their responsibility. A boss just paid you wages, but a master provided for you. Gave you food, shelter, etc. Whether you like it or not, this arrangement probably suited a lot of people.
I don't think anyone who criticized scripture can point to anywhere where God is telling masters to be cruel to their slaves or workers. I don't think he is condoning the type of slavery that the USA indulged in and Jesus never taught that we go into all the world and accumulate slaves. Anyway, that is my 2 cents worth and I didn't put a lot of research into this, so I could have made a couple of blunders in this post.
kerwin wrote:
Quote Slavery is basically an employment contract that the slave can dissolve by successfully rebelling, dying, or by other means depending on the situation. An employment contract? Are you kidding me? What other contract do you know of where you have to dissolve it by “rebelling” or “dying”?
By this standard, you could call prison a “housing arrangement” that the prisoner can successfully change by dying or escaping. Or you could call rape, a “sexual engagement” that the woman can dissolve by repelling her attacker or sewing her [insert appropriate woman parts here] shut.
Slavery is involuntary, and the bible recognizes it as such:
Leviticus 25:44-46: “And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have – from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.”
Notice at the end of the passage, the bible doesn't allow fellow Israelites to be treated in the same fashion, or as the bible puts it: “you shall not rule over one another with rigor.” Why include such a caveat if slavery is such a harmless neutral institution?
Deuteronomy 20:10-14: “When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it. And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you. Now if the city will not make peace with you, but war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the LORD your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the LORD your God gives you.”
This is not an “employment contract”. This is about making whole nations permanent slaves to Israelites or killing the men and making their women and children permanent slaves.
Do you really find all of this neutral and non-violative of of the golden rule?
francis,
I think the word you are looking for is “advocate”.
Deuteronomy 20:11 “…all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you.”
There is no choice in the matter. In the context of the whole passage, the only options are to make all the people your slaves, or to kill the men and make the women and children your slaves. This is not mere “tolerance” or “sufferance” of slavery. This is a direct command to engage in it.
T8 wrote:
Quote Jesus taught that when your enemy slaps your left check, give him your right.
In some sense if you didn't like Jesus you could make the argument that he condoned being abused.
But I think the point that is suppose to be drawn is that we are not to fight back and give cause to retaliate.
Rather by being nice, you can make your enemy feel bad about their actions.This example is exactly the opposite of how the bible discusses slavery. In this case, Jesus is talking about how one should respond to the wrongdoings of another. Jesus does not suggest that you slap your enemy and compel him to “turn the other cheek”. That's what the bible does with slavery. It says, “Do wrong to your neighbor, and especially your enemy. It's OK with me.” If the bible merely said that slaves should be nice to their masters, then it would resemble what Jesus is saying here. Instead though, the bible gives detailed descriptions on who to make slaves, how they can be treated, and which ones can be released. That would be the equivalent of Jesus given a “how to” on slapping people.
T8 wrote:
Quote In the case of masters and slaves. The idea probably gets a bad rap because many masters were cruel to their slaves. But a good master was a blessing. If you had no job, and were hungry, working for a good master was probably a good thing because they looked after you. It was their responsibility. A boss just paid you wages, but a master provided for you. Gave you food, shelter, etc. Whether you like it or not, this arrangement probably suited a lot of people. I don't think anyone who criticized scripture can point to anywhere where God is telling masters to be cruel to their slaves or workers. I don't think he is condoning the type of slavery that the USA indulged in and Jesus never taught that we go into all the world and accumulate slaves. Anyway, that is my 2 cents worth and I didn't put a lot of research into this, so I could have made a couple of blunders in this post.
I think that you are mistaking bible slavery for what might be called “indentured servitude”. With indentured servitude, a person is contracted to work for a specific period of time, but still retains the dignity of personhood. That is not the case with biblical slavery, which is perfectly in line with the slavery practiced in the USA in previous centuries.
Exodus 21:20-21: “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.“
Biblical slaves were treated as property, much like slaves in the USA. One could beat a slave like one could beat a mule. There are no restrictions on when one could beat a slave. As far as the bible is concerned, a master could wake up and beat his slave every morning for the fun of it so long as the slave does not die immediately.
I find it interesting that you did not put a lot of research into your response. Much as you accuse Stu of being a knee-jerk atheist, you are hypocritically being a knee-jerk defender of the bible. Instead, you should be seeking out Truth whether or not it agrees with the bible and judging the bible based on its adherence to Truth.
Hello WhatIsTrue…
I was wondering where this “dignity of personhood” comes from in a universe where no God exists? Is that just something made up by humans? Is it a human convention thought up by humans to apply to humans?
Wouldn't it be true that in a universe with no God, that this concept of of “dignity of personhood” is not objectively found in nature apart from humans coming up with this term themselves, by which to apply to themselves?
You wrote:
Quote Instead, you should be seeking out Truth whether or not it agrees with the bible and judging the bible based on its adherence to Truth. I will ask you a similiar question which Pilate asked Jesus… what is Truth and how do you know that the “dignity of personhood” is objectively and intrinsically a true concept to begin with?
Just asking.
Respectfully
FrancisIf it is written that God condoned slavery why would someone feel the need to disregard what God condoned because we feel it is evil?
Think about it this way we are ignorant to what is ultimately good or bad because we do not have knowledge of the UNSEEN and only partial knowledge of the seen.
I will share this portion of the Quran:
Sura #18
65 Then found they one of Our slaves, unto whom We had given mercy from Us, and had taught him knowledge from Our presence.
66 Moses said unto him: May I follow thee, to the end that thou mayst teach me right conduct of that which thou hast been taught?
67 He said: Lo! thou canst not bear with me.
68 How canst thou bear with that whereof thou canst not compass any knowledge?
69 He said: Allah willing, thou shalt find me patient and I shall not in aught gainsay thee.
70 He said: Well, if thou go with me, ask me not concerning aught till I myself make mention of it unto thee.
71 So they twain set out till, when they were in the ship, he made a hole therein. (Moses) said: Hast thou made a hole therein to drown the folk thereof? Thou verily hast done a dreadful thing.
72 He said: Did I not tell thee that thou couldst not bear with me?
73 (Moses) said: Be not wroth with me that I forgot, and be not hard upon me for my fault.
74 So they twain journeyed on till, when they met a lad, he slew him. (Moses) said: What! Hast thou slain an innocent soul who hath slain no man? Verily thou hast done a horrid thing.
75 He said: Did I not tell thee that thou couldst not bear with me?
76 (Moses) said: If I ask thee after this concerning aught, keep not company with me. Thou hast received an excuse from me.
77 So they twain journeyed on till, when they came unto the folk of a certain township, they asked its folk for food, but they refused to make them guests. And they found therein a wall upon the point of falling into ruin, and he repaired it. (Moses) said: If thou hadst wished, thou couldst have taken payment for it.
78 He said: This is the parting between thee and me! I will announce unto thee the interpretation of that thou couldst not bear with patience.
79 As for the ship, it belonged to poor people working on the river, and I wished to mar it, for there was a king behind them who is taking every ship by force.
80 And as for the lad, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.
81 And we intended that their Lord should change him for them for one better in purity and nearer to mercy.
82 And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father had been righteous, and thy Lord intended that they should come to their full strength and should bring forth their treasure as a mercy from their Lord; and I did it not upon my own command. Such is the interpretation of that wherewith thou couldst not bear.bodhitharta,
I applaud you for at least being consistent. I will address your sentiment with the following quote:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
You would have made a great slave owner.
francis,
I don't post enough around here for you to know any better, but I am not an atheist. I am simply not a “religionist” either. I very much believe in good and evil, and I see slavery as evil and condemn the bible for advocating it. How about you?
Hello WhatIsTrue….
Quote
Francis,
I don't post enough around here for you to know any better, but I am not an atheist. I am simply not a “religionist” either. I very much believe in good and evil, and I see slavery as evil and condemn the bible for advocating it. How about you?But on what basis do you judge whether something is good or evil? Are you saying that you do believe in a God which is the basis for an objective standard that you use?
Okay… you believe in good and evil. But why? And how do you know which is which? And how does the notion of “dignity of personhood” come from your worldview? Where does it come from in your worldview? How is it derived from your worldview?
I've only posted about 13 times in here and just started a couple of weeks ago. So it is I who has not be around here enough to know whether you were an atheist or not.
Sorry for making a false assumption.
Respectfully
FrancisTim,
So according to you to employ another human being is wrong. I say that because that is all owning is as both put a fellow human beings into service but the terms are different. If that is your point of view then it is an extreme one.
Perhaps you object to the terms of service. Those terms of service vary from society to society as each society regulates slavery and other employment practices in various ways.
Slavery is considered involuntary and yet some people choose to be slaves. It certainly can be involuntary.
Is your objection that a slave cannot dissolve their contract if they become unhappy with the service? That is not necessary true as God gives humans the powers that enable them to choose whether to rebel or not though rebellion is seldom righteous. In addition some forms of slavery allow the slave to purchase themselves or be freed in other ways.
In any case you need a better argument than to arrogantly and arbitrarily declare slavery is wrong as you are not God.
Whatistrue,
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. It does not require anything more than that. In the case of slavery the slave is agreeing to the contract by choosing not to rebel even if it means to free themselves they must die. There is some that have chosen death rather than slavery. Others have compromised with that state in different ways.
A slave serves the slaveowner or those the slave owners allows them to serve. That is called employment.
Put the two together and you have an employment contract, like it or not.
Prison is a form of slavery so that comparison is apt. I suppose your argument that rape is comparative to slavery also works in aspects except in those cases the woman is actually incapable of resisting i.e. for example she is unconscious or physically restrained. It works because some forms of rape could be considered a form of slavery even if just temporary.
So let’s see imprisoning someone is immoral only when you either to not have the authority to imprison them, they are innocent of wrongdoing, or the punishment is excessive. Perhaps someone can think of other reasons but that is all I can think of. Rape is considered wrong because it is considered the a cruel and unusual way of disciplining someone for any type of wrongdoing and thus also being at war with your as well something you do not inflict on the innocent. I am going to venture the hypothesis that “rape” originally was “considered” cruel and unusual punishment for the guilty because sex outside of marriage was once considered unethical and old ideas die hard. Western ideas of ethics have changed so now our general repugnance of even punishing the guilty for their crimes may be more the reason for not using it.
That speculation aside the point we are addressing is slavery and there may well be ethical and unethical reason to enslave someone and yet the institute of slavery itself may not be unethical. I would actually say that according to scripture enslaving the innocent is unethical, 1 Timothy 1:10, though it also seems to hold that once enslaved one should not rebel, 1 Peter 2:18.
I cannot dispute that under the legislation of Judah-Israel non-Jews were treated differently than Jews and were regarded as second class citizens even when they worshipped the same God and lived among the Jews. This is made clear in Leviticus 25:44-46. In this case God allowed the children of Israel to be stricter in ruling over these non-Jews. The Hebrew word translated “rigor” can also mean cruel but I am assuming it did not. To answer your question it seems God prefers we not be overly strict but will allow it in certain cases.
Thank you, as I had never understood that lesson about strictness before.
I do not see the “involuntary” in that scripture but I may agree with your point anyways depending on what you mean by “involuntary” as one can” involuntarily” enter a contract. I believe that most western systems of law with invalidate such contract but that is not always the case.Deuteronomy 20:10-14 is about regulating the practice of war where even civilians are considered the enemy and your foe while still alive is considered a danger to you. Slavery was actually a mercy as the alternatives were putting them to death, leaving them to continue to war on the nations of Israel and Judah, or starve to death without their men to provide for them. Nevertheless it does not change the fact that slavery is an agreement to serve in exchange for their lives.
I have has some time since beginning this post and it came to me that perhaps you are of the opinion that the “rigor” in Leviticus 25:44-46 is speaking of the type of control. You could be correct but I do not believe that significantly changes anything I stated about that passage.
I only did a superficial examination of the ideas of rape and imprisonment and so did not cover them thoroughly or most likely very well except perhaps for why and when they are considered unethical or ethical. I believe rape is one that I least understand of the two as regards society, either past or present, though it is the one that is clearly an act that violates the command to love your neighbor as yourself.
Whatistrue,
I have never meant a good person. I have meant people who seem to behave more ethically than others but all do or have done one form of evil or another even if that evil is trivial seeming. If you want to call such individual good then I believe such a loose application of the term is within acceptable grammar standards.
I also will not blame religion or politics or anything else for the willful action of men. Human beings do evil because they choose to do so. In some cases they believe doing evil is good. You certainly do not seem immune to that philosophy. Do you get that from religion?
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 05 2010,17:38) Tim, So according to you to employ another human being is wrong. I say that because that is all owning is as both put a fellow human beings into service but the terms are different. If that is your point of view then it is an extreme one.
I can't even believe I am reading what you wrote.It is your point of view that is an extreme one Kerwin.
You arbitrarily change the meaning of the word slavery to employment.
To think that holding someone in servitude against their will, by force, is a valid form
of employment is absurd to the highest degree.Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
