Christians and Slavery

[challupa]

[

Do you have any scripture references from OT LAW of the prophets that addresses enforced slavery?
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

Abraham the supposed first prophet had slaves, in fact Islam comes from the union of Abraham and his slave woman. I would say that if Abraham is a prophet and he had slaves, he condoned slavery in by extention, so did his God.

It seems strange to me that you would ask that question?

Please do a word study on the Greek word "doulos" which is the word used in this verse. Here's a start for you:

Doulos -
1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
a) a slave
b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men
c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant

As you can see, this Greek word has several meanings. When studying a word, do not impose 21st century concepts onto it - like slaves huddled in the bow of a ship in chains, or being whipped in the cotton fields. This verse could be directed at any form of servanthood. In fact, the King James version (and most other bible versions) use the word SERVANT in this verse.

A slave is a slave because it means that they have not got freedom. I do not define how they became a slave or their treatment to decide whether they were a slave or not. You have differentiated between types of slavery. That is where we see things differently.


So? We're not talking about whether or not the Pope was morally right or wrong in his position, or the Roman Catholic Church, or any other organized religion. We're talking about whether or not Jesus condoned enforced slavery.

I am not talking about the morality of the Pope etc owning slaves, merely showing that they did in fact own slaves up until fairly recently, 1888. Was the RCC not supposed to be the Christian religion that defined what Christ condoned?


Conjecture. Society in general accepted slavery, including but certainly not limited to Christians. And not all Christians, by the way - especially here in the United States, many Christians were HORRIFIED by the evil nature of slavery in this country - hence the most bloody war ever fought on North American soil.

It is only a recent (last hundred years or so) that people became HORRIFIED by the evil nature of slavery. That is good. We have grown away from our mentalities of 2000 years ago. Now if we could update other aspects of the negative teachings that are outdated, we would be so much better off. Jesus was a product of his time. While he may have been socially advanced in some ways, he was still a Jew in the 1st century and not once that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong) did he renounce slavery.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sure, but do you think that God would punish those who have slaves? Do entire countries suffer the wrath of God beacuse of slavery?

It's wrong today but it wasn't always wrong. It wouldnt' have been "bad" during Biblical times. It wouldn't have been "bad" up until 300 years ago. You probably wouldnt' be saying the same thing 300 years ago if slavery / "servitude" was acceptable and your way of life. I guess you could argue that "now we know better" but it doesn't have Biblical backing. Only "do unto others..." and even that can be used appropriately with slavery. You can treat your servants and slaves as you want to be treated, yet still own them. It doesn't have to be inhumane.

ooooh got another one for existentialism

So why would God, the unchanging author of morality, care about what was and was not considered acceptable by some ancient culture? Isn't it supposed to be God and not humans who dictate what is good and evil? Shouldn't God know better? And why try to defend and justify the inhumane and unjust actions of a bunch of primitive savages, anyway? It just goes to show that god was made in their image and not the other way around.
Also, you might want to brush up on your existentialism.

 

[Buttons*]

So why would God, the unchanging author of morality, care about what was and was not considered acceptable by some ancient culture? Isn't it supposed to be God and not humans who dictate what is good and evil? Shouldn't God know better? And why try to defend and justify the inhumane and unjust actions of a bunch of primitive savages, anyway? It just goes to show that god was made in their image and not the other way around.

I think we're on the same side, pal. Otherwise, reword your argument, cause it doesn't make a ton of sense.

Also, you might want to brush up on your existentialism.

You might want to as well oh wait, don't bother with that, you know everything already

 

[Buttons*]

Buttons, in your responding posts, it seems obvious to me that you are not noticing the HUGE difference between enforced slavery and SERVANTHOOD - which is generally consensual.

No, I am noticing that you think these two things were different, even if they occurred at the same period in time, did the same things, but called one "slavery" and one "servanthood" because one group was "brutally traded" versus the people who willfully stayed on to serve their masters as servants.

This is not what I want to know about your opinion. I couldn't care less about the distinction you make between what you think is "ok" slavery and what isn't. That's only your distinction, and I disagree with it. I don't accept your terms because I think they are wrong. There's a question I've posted three times, and you still refuse to answer because you're hung up on the difference between slave trade and good ol' servitude.

Indentured servanthood exists in the free market - we just call it different things in the 21st century. Voila - indentured servanthood.

Which is cool with Jesus, right?

It's not as common now as it was a hundred years ago or longer, but it's still around.

In a sense, anyone who works is an indentured servant. We work for a set amount of time in exchange for money, though, rather than services. Still the same concept.

Slaves also did work in exchange for food, clothes, and shelter. It wasn't quite as good as the owner's houses, but indentured servitude doesn't exactly go out of their way to do that either. Any good slave owner would have had to know that keeping your slaves healthy is the best way to get a larger profit for the upcoming crop. The only difference between slaves and indentured servitude is the fact that one is not owned by the other. However, in most cases, the indentured servant is stuck in the same position for life, because the lord decides to play unfairly and keep them as virtual slaves. Despite the name difference, keeping others under your thumb has never changed in history. It's a good way to do business.

Up till later in the 20th century, indentured servants as we think of them were a fact of life even in the United States. Sometimes the time and labor was tied to apprenticeship as well. Or to pay for passage from Europe or Asia to the United States, for example.

These people were called (gasp) SERVANTS. But it was voluntary on their part.

Yes, because they had no better education or way of climbing up the social ladder, they were completely free and had all the choices in the world.

Now, as for Jesus and slave trade - I absolutely believe that, based on Jesus' teachings, he would have been generally opposed to the buying and selling of people against their will - and CERTAINLY opposed to many of the evil practices of the slave trade in the US, Europe, and Africa in the 17th-19th centuries.

But he would have been fine with it if they had offerend themselves as servants? Pure speculation hon, just like mine is.

Keep in mind though that there are many individual scenarios that we can't judge with general principles. For example - is it humane for a person to buy another person - in order to save them from being bought by an evil, cruel slave owner? Is it humane to "free" people who own nothing, have no education, and no means to make a living? That's basically just putting them out in the cold with nothing - making them homeless.

Yes, keep the slaves, but don't buy them, because buying them is bad and forced, but keeping them on your land once the purchase was made... well that's just merciful.

That's why Jesus said, "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU." Apply that principle and you'll be ok.

Even if they are slaves. Or does he only think it's ok to own others if they allow themselves to be owned voulintarily?

 

[Kathryn]

Buttons, I am done beating this dead horse with you. Apparently logic and historical context don't get the message across to you and I'm tired of trying to say the same thing over and over using different examples and wording in order to get my point across.

If you can't see the difference between the slave trade and indentured servanthood (shrug) - I give up.

I'm obviously wasting my time on this thread.

Peace out!

 

[Buttons*]

Buttons, I am done beating this dead horse with you. Apparently logic and historical context don't get the message across to you and I'm tired of trying to say the same thing over and over using different examples and wording in order to get my point across.

Darling, it's *your* logic that's in question, I can see why you don't feel like carrying on the debate. You obviously aren't discussing the same thing I am.

If you can't see the difference between the slave trade and indentured servanthood (shrug) - I give up.

I'm obviously wasting my time on this thread.

Peace out!

It's not my discernment that matters, it's God's. That's the point. Peace

 

[Tristesse]

Jesus also said, "not a jot or title of the law will be removed until all has come to pass" referring to the old testament. So, the old testament endorses slavery. And while jesus never specifically mentioned slavery, he did promote the law of the old testament. Oh and you can't have the new testament without the old, otherwise the christians wouldn't have those prophecies being fulfilled, that they love so much. haha

 

[Buttons*]

Jesus also said, "not a jot or title of the law will be removed until all has come to pass" referring to the old testament. So, the old testament endorses slavery. And while jesus never specifically mentioned slavery, he did promote the law of the old testament. Oh and you can't have the new testament without the old, otherwise the christians wouldn't have those prophecies being fulfilled, that they love so much. haha

Yeah, that's my point more or less... would you change your opinion if we only encountered slavery of the 21st century? What about slave trade from Africa? Do you think God would punish for these things? Are they any better or worse than Old Testament slavery?