The Slavery

[Papias]

How convenient that you left out the part of Luke that precedes your quote!

Of course I left it out, because it didn't change or affect anything. I also left out the whole preceding 11 chapters of Luke, and the whole preceding Gospel of Matthew, because they too are not relevant. If you think they are relevant, then please tell me how the preceding verses make a severe beating justified?

Quite obviously this is a parable, but notice that the first servant is put in charge of everything, the opposite of receiving a beating. The servant who administered beatings himself is punished to the extreme.

So if a slave behaves badly, you are saying that's it's good and proper to beat him severely, "with many stripes"?

And it's good and proper for a slave who's behavior is better to be beaten as well - but less severely, with "fewer stripes"?

It's clear that slavery has a wide spectrum of behaviors and that Jesus clearly disapproves of mistreatment of slaves.

So Jesus is just fine with enslaving other human beings, and keeping other human beings as property, and beating them? If you think he's not, can you point to the verse where he says so?

Regarding Onesimus, Philemon's runaway slave, Paul says, "It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus-- .... .

I read all that, many times, and as pointed out, Paul never suggest that anything is wrong with slavery. As I wrote before:

Paul never once suggests that "hey, slavery is simply wrong - don't own another human being, OK?"? The one where he never suggests that the slavemaster free any slaves he has, regardless of who they or their friends are? The one where he's talking about slavery, and doesn't say that Christians should not, ever, enslave and own other human beings? We are talking about the same Philemon, right? ​

....and to not give him the severe punishment that a runaway slave deserved.

So now you are saying that runaway slaves deserve "severe punishment"!

Wow! I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation in 2017. How about this - how about when someone enslaves a human being, or "buys" a human being, prevents them from "escaping" (going where they want to go on their own free will), and makes them work as a slave, we help the person escape, and imprison the slavemaster? Do we agree that a "runaway slave" doesn't deserve "severe punishment", but instead is an actual human being who deserves justice for being enslaved?

I won't even respond to the suggestion that I approve of slavery.

You make a whole bunch of statements in support of slavery (statements, by the way, which are the same as those used by confederates to justify slavery during the civil war), and refuse to answer direct questions about how you see slavery, and expect us to conclude the opposite - that you have a problem with slavery? If you want people to conclude that you categorically reject slavery, then why won't you just say so?

Not all slaves were treated badly in NT times. In some cases they were treated very, very well. ....Some were slaves and others were free, and the former were often better off than the latter.

Which makes owning another human being and the bad treatment of other slaves OK? Really, what are you trying to say here? You know that Not all slaves were treated badly in the old south. In some cases they were treated very, very well.

Does that make the slavery in the old south OK?

You are making a grave mistake by projecting recent American history onto an entirely different culture that existed twenty-one centuries ago.

Oh, really? So owning another human being, seeing them as property, and beating them isn't OK now, but was OK then, because it was "an entirely different culture"? That makes it OK, right?

And speaking of the sex slavery of Abram and others, did you see this article by an old testament scholar who was watching "The Handmaid's Tale"? You know, the story where women are made into womb slaves? He realized that this is exactly what happens over and over in the Old Testament - not just Hagar, but others too. And it's never condemned. Do you think that makes it OK?

http://religionnews.com/2017/05/04/handmaids-tale-genesis-bible-judaism/

Papias

 

[pescador]

Of course I left it out, because it didn't change or affect anything. I also left out the whole preceding 11 chapters of Luke, and the whole preceding Gospel of Matthew, because they too are not relevant. If you think they are relevant, then please tell me how the preceding verses make a severe beating justified?



So if a slave behaves badly, you are saying that's it's good and proper to beat him severely, "with many stripes"?

And it's good and proper for a slave who's behavior is better to be beaten as well - but less severely, with "fewer stripes"?




So Jesus is just fine with enslaving other human beings, and keeping other human beings as property, and beating them? If you think he's not, can you point to the verse where he says so?



I read all that, many times, and as pointed out, Paul never suggest that anything is wrong with slavery. As I wrote before:

Paul never once suggests that "hey, slavery is simply wrong - don't own another human being, OK?"? The one where he never suggests that the slavemaster free any slaves he has, regardless of who they or their friends are? The one where he's talking about slavery, and doesn't say that Christians should not, ever, enslave and own other human beings? We are talking about the same Philemon, right? ​

So now you are saying that runaway slaves deserve "severe punishment"!

Wow! I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation in 2017. How about this - how about when someone enslaves a human being, or "buys" a human being, prevents them from "escaping" (going where they want to go on their own free will), and makes them work as a slave, we help the person escape, and imprison the slavemaster? Do we agree that a "runaway slave" doesn't deserve "severe punishment", but instead is an actual human being who deserves justice for being enslaved?



You make a whole bunch of statements in support of slavery (statements, by the way, which are the same as those used by confederates to justify slavery during the civil war), and refuse to answer direct questions about how you see slavery, and expect us to conclude the opposite - that you have a problem with slavery? If you want people to conclude that you categorically reject slavery, then why won't you just say so?



Which makes owning another human being and the bad treatment of other slaves OK? Really, what are you trying to say here? You know that Not all slaves were treated badly in the old south. In some cases they were treated very, very well.

Does that make the slavery in the old south OK?



Oh, really? So owning another human being, seeing them as property, and beating them isn't OK now, but was OK then, because it was "an entirely different culture"? That makes it OK, right?

And speaking of the sex slavery of Abram and others, did you see this article by an old testament scholar who was watching "The Handmaid's Tale"? You know, the story where women are made into womb slaves? He realized that this is exactly what happens over and over in the Old Testament - not just Hagar, but others too. And it's never condemned. Do you think that makes it OK?

http://religionnews.com/2017/05/04/handmaids-tale-genesis-bible-judaism/

Papias

I'm not going to respond to this since you are twisting my words and accusing me of things that I didn't say or mean. It's obvious that you have no defense other than personal attack. I stand with Jesus and Paul on the issue of slavery; nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Kutte]

"Slaves" has a certain connotation in US history, but very often in the Roman empire they were well-treated and given important responsibilities. In Acts, Jesus is referred to as God's servant: "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus." A good servant obeys their master 100%. "...not your will but mine".

Paul wrote this to the Romans, "Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? Slave to obedience that leads to righteousness, get it? He also wrote, "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." Slaves to righteousness!! Here's another:, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Slaves of God!! Also, "For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave." Christs's slave!

Paul often refers to "servants", including himself, in his letters. Here are but a few examples: "Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons", "I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness...", "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness", and others.

I suggest that you take some time to read the New Testament, paying particular attention to "servants" and "slaves". They're mentioned over and over, their meaning is sometimes positive(!) and sometimes negative.

Hi Pescador,

Seems to me that we have to differentiate between a slave and a servant.
I understand the problem many Christians have when they read Paul's comments relating to slaves and the best explanation would be to argue that during Roman times slaves were considered servants and not slaves.

A slave is being looked at as an object to be purchased and then exploited for personal gain. Of course it can only be in the owners interest to treat his slaves well since he paid money for them. Just like with any other object, like a new car for instance.
A servant on the other hand is someone doing so on his own free will. As you correctly pointed that one can be a servant of Jesus Christ but not being forced to do so. This kind of service to
Christ puts one on a different level to slaves.

I am disagreeing with Paul when he speaks of "slaves to sin" or "slaves of God". What we have here is a distortion of the meaning of slaves because no purchase and ownership is involved to become an adherent to sin or God's servant/follower. One does so out of one's own free will.
God bless

 

[Papias]

I'm not going to respond to this since you are twisting my words .....

I'm responding to what you typed. In what case do you think I am "twisting your words"?

I'm not going to respond to this since you are ..... accusing me of things that I didn't say or mean.

What did I accuse you of that you didn't say? As far as what you "didn't mean", I of course can tell what you mean if that's different from what you say. In fact, I've asked for clarification a number of times and you have refused to give it, so I don't know what more you could ask for.

It's obvious that you have no defense other than personal attack.

Personal attack? When did I make a personal attack? If I've made a person attack, I'll happily apologize. Disagreeing with an idea you posted is not a "personal attack".

As for all the other questions you refuse to answer - that's not a courteous way to have a discussion. I've answered every question you've asked me.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

I understand the problem many Christians have when they read Paul's comments relating to slaves and the best explanation would be to argue that during Roman times slaves were considered servants and not slaves.

That "explanation" is just plain wrong. Historians agree that during Roman times there was widespread slavery - regular, standard slavery where one person is "owned" by another person. It's clear throughout the Bibles that "servant" often means traditional, owned slave. Both the old and new testaments mention these slaves being beaten at their slavemaster's whim.

An overview of the widespread nature of slavery in the ancient world is here. Slavery in antiquity - Wikipedia

In Christ-

Papias

 

[pescador]

I'm responding to what you typed. In what case do you think I am "twisting your words"?



What did I accuse you of that you didn't say? As far as what you "didn't mean", I of course can tell what you mean if that's different from what you say. In fact, I've asked for clarification a number of times and you have refused to give it, so I don't know what more you could ask for.



Personal attack? When did I make a personal attack? If I've made a person attack, I'll happily apologize. Disagreeing with an idea you posted is not a "personal attack".

As for all the other questions you refuse to answer - that's not a courteous way to have a discussion. I've answered every question you've asked me.

In Christ-

Papias

1) Instead of referring to the few verses previous to the ones you cited in Luke you made a snide comment about all the preceding verses in Luke and all of Matthew. You dodged with question with sarcasm.

2) I never said that's it's good and proper to beat him severely "with many stripes". You're twisting my words and adding false meaning to what I said.

3) I never said that Jesus is just fine with enslaving other human beings, and keeping other human beings as property, and beating them. That too is adding false meaning to what I said.

4) I suggest again that you read Philemon and pay attention to the way Paul regards Onesimus' slave, since you have clearly missed the point of the letter.

5) I have never said that runaway slaves deserve "severe punishment".

You say "Do we agree that a "runaway slave" doesn't deserve "severe punishment", but instead is an actual human being who deserves justice for being enslaved?" Don't project your 21st Century morals on ancient Rome. That's the way it was in NT times; you can't revise historical facts.

6) "You make a whole bunch of statements in support of slavery...and refuse to answer direct questions about how you see slavery" This is a complete fabrication!! I will not answer any of your twisted questions, period, and I think you should seriously consider your motives for asking them.

7) "...which makes owning another human being and the bad treatment of other slaves OK?" Again, a complete distortion of what I said.

8) "So owning another human being, seeing them as property, and beating them isn't OK now, but was OK then, because it was "an entirely different culture"? That must be your opinion because I certainly never said anything like that. As I said before, you can't rewrite history so stop trying.

9) "And speaking of the sex slavery of Abram and others..." I never said anything at all about that subject. You're once again twisting the discussion away from what is being discussed.

I think that you seriously need to consider your attitude and motives toward others when you discuss a subject. Instead of being objective and having a reasonable discussion, you twist words and unjustly attack others on the basis of what you say they said and or meant. Although I easily could I will not respond in kind. If you continue your personal slander I will report it to the forum monitors. Do I make myself clear?

 

[Papias]

Sorry for the delay - been busy with the kids and stuff.

In these, I've asked what you specifically meant. That's not "attacking you". you could clear that up by simply answering the questions about your statements. You seem to be unhappy with me asking about the natural implications of your statements - which is odd when you could simply clear them up instead of objecting to me pointing them out.

1) Instead of referring to the few verses previous to the ones you cited in Luke you made a snide comment about all the preceding verses in Luke and all of Matthew. You dodged with question with sarcasm.

No, I pointed out that your statement isn't supported by what actually happened.

2) I never said that's it's good and proper to beat him severely "with many stripes". You're twisting my words and adding false meaning to what I said.

OK, if you think I misunderstood, then simply clarify - such as by saying "I don't think it's ever ok for a slave to be beaten with many stripes.".

1
3) I never said that Jesus is just fine with enslaving other human beings, and keeping other human beings as property, and beating them. That too is adding false meaning to what I said.

Which is why I asked you about that.

4) I suggest again that you read Philemon and pay attention to the way Paul regards Onesimus' slave, since you have clearly missed the point of the letter.

So you know the "the point of the letter" better than me or anyone else? How, since we both are reading the letter?

5) I have never said that runaway slaves deserve "severe punishment".

Yes, you did, in post #20. You wrote:

Paul fully expects Philemon to regard Onesimus as the exact opposite of his former status, and to not give him the severe punishment that a runaway slave deserved.

Now, you can say that you changed your mind, or that you typed that in error, but you haven't done so yet, and until you do so, anyone reading this can reasonably conclude that you think that at least that runaway slave deserved "severe punishment".

You say "Do we agree that a "runaway slave" doesn't deserve "severe punishment", but instead is an actual human being who deserves justice for being enslaved?" Don't project your 21st Century morals on ancient Rome. That's the way it was in NT times; you can't revise historical facts.

I'm not disputing any historical facts. I'm asking what you think about the morality of slavery and the treatment of humans regardless of what year it is.

6) "You make a whole bunch of statements in support of slavery...and refuse to answer direct questions about how you see slavery" This is a complete fabrication!! I will not answer any of your twisted questions, period, and I think you should seriously consider your motives for asking them.

It's clear that you have refused to answer questions, right? That's not a fabrication. As for "statements in support of slavery", maybe I misinterpreted them. Here are a couple that seemed to me, on first reading, to support or defend slavery. If not, please let me know why they don't support or defend slavery:

• Not all slaves were treated badly in NT times. In some cases they were treated very, very well.
• Some were slaves and others were free, and the former were often better off than the latter.
• "Slaves" has a certain connotation in US history, but very often in the Roman empire they were well-treated and given important responsibilities. etc.

7) "...which makes owning another human being and the bad treatment of other slaves OK?" Again, a complete distortion of what I said.

As pointed out earlier, many of your statements seemed to me to be defending or justifying the practice of owning another human being, saying that it was often allowing them to be "better off" etc. I was asking for clarification. If it was a complete distortion, and I misunderstood, then you can easily clear up my misunderstanding by stating that you don't consider owning another human being to ever be OK, or that you consider beating a slave to be wrong. Thanks in advance for clearing that up.

8) "So owning another human being, seeing them as property, and beating them isn't OK now, but was OK then, because it was "an entirely different culture"? That must be your opinion because I certainly never said anything like that. As I said before, you can't rewrite history so stop trying.

You wrote:

Not all slaves were treated badly in NT times. In some cases they were treated very, very well. You are making a grave mistake by projecting recent American history onto an entirely different culture that existed twenty-one centuries ago. ​

I was asking if you consider the morality of not owning another human being or how they are treated is different in different years. I think that these things are either moral or immoral regardless of what year it is. If I've misunderstood you, you can help me understand by simply stating whether or not the year matters for moral issues. Thanks.

9) "And speaking of the sex slavery of Abram and others..." I never said anything at all about that subject. You're once again twisting the discussion away from what is being discussed.

Sorry - maybe I mistook someone else's post for yours.

Have nice day-

In Christ-

Papias

 

[pescador]

I am not going to continue this discussion, primarily because you insist on my responding in a certain way rather than trying to understand what I have said. Since you prefer to try to prove me wrong at all points and require that I follow your rules of discussion. I will no longer respond -- except for one final thought: I in no way endorse slavery, never have and never will, but I do not deny the reality of the conditions that existed in biblical times, including the New Testament era.

 

[Papias]

I in no way endorse slavery, never have and never will, but.......

Thank you for that - it's good to hear that, even if followed by "but..."

......but I do not deny the reality of the conditions that existed in biblical times, including the New Testament era.

Why is that "but"? No one ever denied that reality on this thread. You've repeated said that slavery was "reality" in response to my questions about whether it was ever moral - but that's of course a completely different question. The fact that something was (is!) a reality in no way makes it moral.

So that again brings up the point I've been trying to make - that slavery is always immoral. Always immoral, at any time, in any year, in any society, in any culture, no matter what race is enslaved, in any part of the world, regardless of what titles or names the slaves are given, regardless of what their condition was before being enslaved, regardless of "good intentions" by the slavemaster, regardless of whether or not their parents were also enslaved, etc.

In Christ-

Papias