The Slavery

So how does the bible comment on modern day slavery?

alex2165 said:

In order to know more about slavery in modern world and in the past, I turned to Biblical commentators and to Bible itself in order to find a better point of view and understanding about this touchy subject.

Click to expand...

Slavery comes up often in the Bibles - it was part of life back then.

The Bibles are clear again and again that slavery is fine - including slavery as it was practiced in the old South.

Some may claim that Biblical slavery is kind, loving servitude for fellow Hebrews, who enter it voluntarily, are not harmed, and are set free after six years - but that's only true for some slaves. Reading the Bibles show two (2) separate and non-equal paralle sets of laws based on race/culture for Hebrew vs. non-Hebrew slaves (somewhat like Jim Crow laws). There was the more gentle slavery for Hebrew slaves, and the fully barbaric slavery for all other slaves. People advocating this or that position will often simply focus on one set and ignore the other set, which is of course picking and choosing again.

Unlike Hebrews, non-Hebrews could legally be involuntarily, permanently enslaved through war (Dt 20), or through the slave trade (Lev 25:44). Long-lived slaves could also be bequeathed to the master’s heirs like other property (Lev 25:46). Non-Hebrew slaves could be beaten, as long as they weren’t killed, and didn’t lose an eye or tooth. Ex 21:21 states: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” How severely must a man or woman be beaten to be unable to get up for many hours?

Slavery is the punishment meted out in Genesis 9, and that "curse of Ham" explicitly says that black people are to be enslaved. It is supported throughout the Bibles, an in addition to the verses above, the ten commandments approve of slavery twice (commandments 3/4 and 10), and Jesus himself talks about how some slaves are severely beaten, never saying anything is wrong with slavery. Paul too talks about slavery in many cases, never saying that slavery is wrong and should not be allowed. If they had any problem with it at all, they could have said "slavery is wrong - don't do it", in just 7 words or so. But of course, in the hundreds of thousands of words in the Bibles, they didn't say that.

With the clear, repeated endorsement of slavery by both Protestant & Catholic Bibles, it’s no surprise that for centuries, slavery was supported by many Christians (both Catholic and Protestant leaders), including Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, and of course, many Popes. Jefferson Davis, the President of the U. S. Confederacy, was just simply right when he said that: “Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation.”

Luckily, we Christians can see that God calls us to move past a literal reading of scripture, and reject slavery on the simple basis of compassion.

alex2165 said:

From this point and on Sarah suspended her right to have Hagar as her property and now Hagar became the property of Abraham. It was a completely legal custom

Click to expand...

Note that this is sex slavery. Hagar was a slave, and hence the power imbalance means she can't give consent (and it never says that she did, anyway, I think). The fact that her situation angered Sarah shows that Sarah was in a subservient position, (women being seen as property), which also doesn't fit equal rights for everyone. It's good that we've come a long way from seeing people as property, and I hope you aren't going to try to suggest that keeping people as property is ever OK.

In Christ-

Papias

Papias said:

Slavery comes up often in the Bibles - it was part of life back then.

The Bibles are clear again and again that slavery is fine - including slavery as it was practiced in the old South.

Some may claim that Biblical slavery is kind, loving servitude for fellow Hebrews, who enter it voluntarily, are not harmed, and are set free after six years - but that's only true for some slaves. Reading the Bibles show two (2) separate and non-equal paralle sets of laws based on race/culture for Hebrew vs. non-Hebrew slaves (somewhat like Jim Crow laws). There was the more gentle slavery for Hebrew slaves, and the fully barbaric slavery for all other slaves. People advocating this or that position will often simply focus on one set and ignore the other set, which is of course picking and choosing again.

Unlike Hebrews, non-Hebrews could legally be involuntarily, permanently enslaved through war (Dt 20), or through the slave trade (Lev 25:44). Long-lived slaves could also be bequeathed to the master’s heirs like other property (Lev 25:46). Non-Hebrew slaves could be beaten, as long as they weren’t killed, and didn’t lose an eye or tooth. Ex 21:21 states: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” How severely must a man or woman be beaten to be unable to get up for many hours?

Slavery is the punishment meted out in Genesis 9, and that "curse of Ham" explicitly says that black people are to be enslaved. It is supported throughout the Bibles, an in addition to the verses above, the ten commandments approve of slavery twice (commandments 3/4 and 10), and Jesus himself talks about how some slaves are severely beaten, never saying anything is wrong with slavery. Paul too talks about slavery in many cases, never saying that slavery is wrong and should not be allowed. If they had any problem with it at all, they could have said "slavery is wrong - don't do it", in just 7 words or so. But of course, in the hundreds of thousands of words in the Bibles, they didn't say that.

With the clear, repeated endorsement of slavery by both Protestant & Catholic Bibles, it’s no surprise that for centuries, slavery was supported by many Christians (both Catholic and Protestant leaders), including Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, and of course, many Popes. Jefferson Davis, the President of the U. S. Confederacy, was just simply right when he said that: “Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation.”

Luckily, we Christians can see that God calls us to move past a literal reading of scripture, and reject slavery on the simple basis of compassion.



Note that this is sex slavery. Hagar was a slave, and hence the power imbalance means she can't give consent (and it never says that she did, anyway, I think). The fact that her situation angered Sarah shows that Sarah was in a subservient position, (women being seen as property), which also doesn't fit equal rights for everyone. It's good that we've come a long way from seeing people as property, and I hope you aren't going to try to suggest that keeping people as property is ever OK.

In Christ-

Papias

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but you are well misinformed. Slavery in any form or fashion is not righteous nor accepted. Do you not know that it says that the scribes and rulers changed the bible? The people in control. Do you not know that the church added things to the bible to justify the evil that they did mainly upon minorities? Do you not know that our lord came from the land of Kemet 'the black land', and that he was not desirable to the world? The very Lord that you love may have been black. How can black skin be a curse, when blacks are genetically the fathers of the world, and every race came from them? black skin is not a curse that is some KKK republican thinking. it is crazy how the white race can commit the most abominations on this earth and still try to make blacks out to be the bad guys. Do you know how about the holocaust, slave trade all around the world, the destruction of the native americans? If anything blacks are the children of God, the tribes which were spread all over the world that the lord will bring back and set them in their land. The lord did not come for the rich..You are mistaken your hatred for blacks have blinded you from the truth. If anything blacks were cursed for being his chosen people...not for being black. I don't have time to educate you.. but if you want to know more about what the world has done to blacks... and the facts that also say that the lord was black go to christiancommunion.blog

Get informed, stop the hate!

@alex2165 Hi, Alex Yes, God decides. It is clear how God does have rules for how to manage slaves. One included is that if a slave loves his master, he may stay with his master permanently. So, I see how God knows there is the love possibility of slavery . . . how it can be done right, so family love relationships result. But with men this is not possible

Also, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 our Apostle Paul does say that if someone becomes a Christian while the person is a slave, do not be bothered about this, but make God's good use of it. And if you can be made free, then make good use of this

I see that God knows that all humans in sin are in slavery to Satan and "fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15) . . . already. So, if someone is already Satan's slave, it does not make much of a difference if the person is a human slave or not. We see how a number of slave holders, by the way, were constantly in fear of their slaves; so they were slaves of their own fear, even while supposing they owned people.

But ones can make such a big deal out of slavery which is human . . . keeping their attention away from how they themselves allow their own selves to be slaves of their fear and boredom and loneliness and angry reacting and arguing and complaining and lusts for various love-dead pleasures which do not make them deeply free and sound and stable. Also, they can emotionally try to control others for what they want; so they are in themselves trying to possess people, even while claiming to be against slavery.

And in God's grace, we are so blessed that it does not really make a major difference how things are in our lives. Paul could take "pleasure" in any situation, if he was living in grace > 2 Corinthians 12:7-15. I think, among other things, that Paul understood that a Christian in slavery could be used by God to reach other slaves for Jesus, and this would be much less of a sacrifice than all Jesus has gone through for us

And we have how Joseph used his slavery situation for God's all-loving good . . . how God had this all work > Genesis 37-50.

So, if we only control society so selfish people can stay out of slavery, this is not enough for all they really need, first.

alex2165 said:

You wrote: “Do you not know that it says that the scribes and rulers changed the bible?”
This is not true at all. I have several different Bibles, and some of them in Hebrew with translation into English, and they are all the same, except certain wordings, but the meaning of all verses of the Bible very well preserved and the same.

Click to expand...

Simply false. There are many different Bibles, with whole different verses and even books. My Bible here has 73 books, others have only 66, 63, or more, like 109 in the Ethiopian Bible. Even with the same books, sections have been taken out or added over the years. The whole story of the woman caught in adultery was added in the middle ages (it's absent in the ancient manuscripts), and so on. That's why the KJV when compared to the NIV has as much text added as the entire books of 1st and 2nd peter. Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)

In addition to that, many of our books have no copies from anywhere near when they were written - with our oldest copies of some of them from centuries after Jesus lived. So all the changes and revisions made before our oldest copy we'll never know about- these could be more than all the others. A lot of scribal changes are pretty obvious. In our oldest copy of the Bible, a scribe has lined out part of 1st Hebrews. Then a second scribe has lined that out, and put in the first reading, and written a mean note to the first scribe in the margin!

Martin Luther and recent Popes have made changes to the various Bibles. That's why there are so many of them. Regardless of whether we like it or not, the fact is that Newli is right about changes being made to the Bibles.

alex2165 said:

Bible also has been compared to the Qumran scripts found in the cave and dated at least 2.000 or 2.500 years in to the past, only the Book of Esther was not found among them. All these manuscripts have been translated and compared to the modern translation of the Bible, and all match perfectly one to another.

Click to expand...

Simply false. They certainly don't "perfectly match".

First, some dead sea scrolls (DSS - Qumran) basics. Yep, they are pretty good in showing accuracy in transmission of the old testament. Knowing how often copyists make errors, the DSS have fewer errors and outright changes than expected. They contain all of the books of the old testament (including those in the Catholic OT) except for Esther. However, some “books” are preserved by only a few lines, so saying that they contain all of the OT is inaccurate. In other words, if a book had only a few lines from it found, then the DSS is said to contain that book. This is the case with Samuel, for instance.

Second – hucksters selling stuff have fed us lines that the DSS “match” the “Bible”, or that they are “virtually error free” or that “the book of Isaiah has only a few changes to 5 words”, or “scholars are amazed at how accurate the DSS are”. All of these are misleading, are sometimes just plain false. Like any copied material, there were many errors. It is true that scholars are surprised at how accurate they are, because they contained thousands of changes instead of tens of thousands – that’s a far cry from "matching perfectly". The books vary greatly in their quality. Isaiah has a lot of changes, but less than other books. More altered books are like, say, Psalms, which as many changes to the content, order, and presence of the Psalms, in addition to having a half dozen invented Psalms that aren’t in most Bibles. I have a copy of the DSS, and there are footnoted changes on nearly every page, with many pages that have between 6-10 changes. It’s true that most of these changes are trivial, such as misspellings or minor word changes, but some are much more significant – see below.

I've seen this discussion happen often with moving goalposts. A person will make a claim (like "the DSS perfectly match the Bible"), that's shown that to be wrong, and they’ll move the goalposts without admitting that they were wrong, and make a new claim. At which point we can show that the new goalposts/claim is also wrong, at which point the goalposts will be moved again. This cycle will continue until someone gets tired, or you end up at a completely watered-down statement.

For instance:

Person: “The DSS show that the Bible has been transmitted with virtually no error.”

Y: “The DSS do in fact show changes – spelling mistakes, other changes, and such occur throughout them.”

Person: “The very few changes are very minor. A DSS scholar said that Isaiah 63 had only one error in one word. Imagine, only one word changed in 2,000 years!” (note first retreat of goalposts)

Y: “Any change is a problem since you said they match 'perfectly'. Let’s look at those changes. Isaiah alone has hundreds of changes, and it’s about the best match in there. Other books have larger changes.”

Person: “Well, even with more changes, none of the changes go beyond minor spelling mistakes, and none change the meaning.” (2nd goalpost location change)

Y: “OK, let’s continue to look at some changes. The example below from 2nd Samual shows that entire lines differ, with content changes including, in that case, a new story about thousands of Jews getting their eyes gouged out. That’s not a change in meaning?”

Person: “None of the changes affect a single doctrine of Christianity.” (3rd new goalpost location)

Y: “Well, we saw from the 2nd Samuel example that there are differences in the Jewish history which is given, and there are other clear changes in meaning too. Isn’t it a doctrine that the Bible records the history of the Jews?”

Person: “That’s a minor point. I mean major, significant doctrines, not just any doctrine.” (4th new goalpost location)

Y: “You know as well as I do that doctrines are ‘interpreted’ various ways regardless of what the scripture says – that’s why we have thousands of Christianities today who use the same KJV bible. Besides, a lot do affect doctrine, unless one has decided ahead of time what they will ‘interpret’ the DSS to mean. For instance, many Christians point to Isaiah 6:3 (“Holy, holy, holy”) to show the doctrine of the trinity. The DSS has just “Holy, holy” there – so are you saying that the trinity isn’t a major doctrine?”

Person: “No matter what you say, it’s clear that the overall message of the Bible isn’t changed by the DSS.” (5th new goalpost location)

Y: “Whose ‘overall message’ do you mean, and whose bible do you mean? The DSS contains the books that the Protestants removed from the Catholic bible, as well as containing other books that the Catholics don’t have – including 1st Enoch and the Letter of Jeremy, among others. Those books all have doctrines. For instance, the books that the Protestants removed from the Catholic Bible support prayer to Saints and for the dead (that’s part of why the Protestants took them out). Those books are in the DSS. The book of Enoch has really wild stuff, like saying that there were 400 ft tall cannibals that killed people a few thousand years ago. Do Christians believe in these towering cannibals, or is that not part of the “overall message”? Plus, the DSS society seem to have rejected the book of Esther, which is part of the KJV and most of the currently used Bibles.

Person: “The DSS show that most of the text of the Bible Christians have today can be found in the DSS.” (6th new goalpost location).

Y: “Well, you mean the old testament, not the whole Bible, right? There were no new testament books nor Christian works of any kind in the DSS.”

Person: “oh. Yeah.” (final watered down agreement, that there is a lot of text that’s currently in the Old Testament that can be found in the DSS.)


Goalposts

1

The DSS show virtually no error or no error (“they match” = no error)

2

The very few changes are very minor.

3

none of the changes go beyond minor spelling mistakes

4

None of the changes change the meaning

5

None of the changes affect a single doctrine of Christianity.

6

I mean major, significant doctrines, not just any doctrine.

7

the overall message of the Bible isn’t changed by the DSS.

8

The DSS show that most of the text of the Bible Christians have today can be found in what Jews had more than 2,000 years ago.

9

there is a lot of text that’s currently in the Old Testament that can be found with only a few changes in the DSS

So, maybe we can save some time by just agreeing now that:

There is a lot of text that’s currently in the Old Testament that can be found with only a few changes in the DSS.

Sound good?

In Christ-

Papias

Matthew 22:34-40

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I'm not sure how slavery -- especially the kind formerly practiced in America -- falls in line with verse 39.

JayW said:

Matthew 22:34-40

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I'm not sure how slavery -- especially the kind formerly practiced in America -- falls in line with verse 39.

Click to expand...

Hi JayW,
the practice of slavery does not fall in line with verse 39 you quoted. Paul's remarks urging slaves to work hard for their owners, not to talk back to them, and work even harder if their owners happen to be Christians (1Tim. 6:12) is clearly corrupting the message from Jesus to love your neighbors as yourself. More than that, Paul's statements could be seen as a justification of slavery in the old American South.
God bless

The practice of slavery in New Testament, Roman empire times, was very, very different from the slavery practiced in the Confederate south. Slaves were often treated very, very well by their owners and given a great deal of responsibility. "Servants" is really a better word, with fewer connotations. There were undoubtedly mistreatments of slaves, but the majority were valued and treated with respect.

If one is an employee of a corporation, s/he is expected to carry out a role with responsibility, fulfilling the role defined by the owners, a.k.a. job responsibilities. S/he is given a salary to be able to buy the things necessary to survive (with some extras); these were provided to the slaves of New Testament times in return for their labor. Unlike modern employees, slaves were most often cared for directly by their masters.

A good example in the New Testament is the situation when the vineyard is leased. Whom did the owner initially send to collect his share? His servants (trusted slaves). Another is when the master left and gave money to his servants, rewarding those who managed his money wisely and depriving the one who didn't because of fear of the owner.

pescador said:

The practice of slavery in New Testament, Roman empire times, was very, very different from the slavery practiced in the Confederate south. Slaves were often treated very, very well by their owners and given a great deal of responsibility. "Servants" is really a better word, with fewer connotations. There were undoubtedly mistreatments of slaves, but the majority were valued and treated with respect.

If one is an employee of a corporation, s/he is expected to carry out a role with responsibility, fulfilling the role defined by the owners, a.k.a. job responsibilities. S/he is given a salary to be able to buy the things necessary to survive (with some extras); these were provided to the slaves of New Testament times in return for their labor. Unlike modern employees, slaves were most often cared for directly by their masters.

A good example in the New Testament is the situation when the vineyard is leased. Whom did the owner initially send to collect his share? His servants (trusted slaves). Another is when the master left and gave money to his servants, rewarding those who managed his money wisely and depriving the one who didn't because of fear of the owner.

Click to expand...

Hi pescador,
I'll have to take your words for granted that slaves were 'servants' during the Roman Empire times, receiving salaries, may even have enjoyed social benefits like paid vacation and were being well cared for by their masters. Now, why in heavens name, does Paul refer to slaves instead of servants? The term 'servants' must have been part of the language spoken by people at the time. Or was it not?
God bless

Kutte said:

Hi pescador,
I'll have to take your words for granted that slaves were 'servants' during the Roman Empire times, receiving salaries, may even have enjoyed social benefits like paid vacation and were being well cared for by their masters. Now, why in heavens name, does Paul refer to slaves instead of servants? The term 'servants' must have been part of the language spoken by people at the time. Or was it not?
God bless

Click to expand...

"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.

alex2165 said:

While Law strictly prohibits Hebrews to own another Hebrew as a slave,

Click to expand...

Um, no. Hebrews certainly kept Hebrews as slaves. What verse do you think prohibits that?

alex2165 said:

as you rightly pointed out, at the year of Sabbatical the slaves have to be released as free men and women with compensation for their labor, no matter if they paid their debt or not.

Click to expand...

No. Hebrew men were to be released. If the slave was a non-hebrew, they never had to be released. Exodus 21:2

alex2165 said:

Again, this is nothing to do with the issue who is Hebrew and who is not, because Bible never divided treatment for Hebrew slave and non Hebrew any differently, all slaves in the Bible, Hebrew or not are subject to the same Law, same punishment, and same treatment.

Click to expand...

Wrong. I pointed out above how Ex 21:2 only applies to Hebrew slaves, and there are plenty of other examples where the Bible is clear that there are two different sets of laws, and that it is talking about Hebrew slaves as opposed to foreign slaves. One additional clear place is in Lev. 25, where the law for Hebrew slaves is described in Lev. 25:39-43, and the different law for foreign slaves is described in Lev. 25 44-46.

This isn't something new. Historians have read the scripture and known for a long time that it obviously has one set of laws for Hebrew slaves and a different set for non-hebrew slaves.

alex2165 said:

I do not found any proof in the Bible where non Hebrew slaves treated unfairly, barbaric, or brutal, because they are foreigners.

You wrote: “Non-Hebrew slaves could be beaten, as long as they weren’t killed, and didn’t lose an eye or tooth. Ex 21:21 states: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” How severely must a man or woman be beaten to be unable to get up for many hours?”

Click to expand...

They were treated brutally because they were slaves. The very fact that a Hebrew slave could walk away from that in a few years while a foreign slave couldn't is a clear difference - with many decades of more abuse for the foreign slave as opposed to the Hebrew slave.

More to the point, I hope we agree that routine whipping someone is horrible treatment, and quite barbaric, right?

alex2165 said:

Hi Papias
Above all, according to the Law, all foreigners who lived in Israel have to abide to the Law of Moses, which was the Law of the land, and all foreigners must be treated equally according to the Law in all issues and statutes of the Law as native Hebrews.

Click to expand...

No. You are confusing parts of the law (especially laws about worship of one religion only) with all of the law. For instance, as shown above. Hebrew slaves had to be freed after 7 years, foreign slaves did not. That's not equal treatment.

alex2165 said:

You wrote: “Non-Hebrew slaves could be beaten, as long as they weren’t killed, and didn’t lose an eye or tooth. Ex 21:21 states: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” How severely must a man or woman be beaten to be unable to get up for many hours?”

But the meaning of the verse you presented relates to intentions of the master, and according to his intentions he would be punished or justified.

If a master beats a slave to death, the intention was to kill a slave. If a master beats a slave and a slave survives, the intention was not to kill him or her, even if a slave dies later from his/her injuries.

Click to expand...

That's silly. The master's intentions are irrelevent, and that's why they aren't mentioned in the scripture. One could very easily simply intend to beat the living tar out of the slave - to make him suffer - without intending to kill him (he's a valuable slave, after all), and end up killing him - or vice versa. (Intend to kill him and he happens to survive).

alex2165 said:

As it mentioned in the verse you presented, slave is a property of the owner, and under bondage of his master just like any other thing in his master’s household, despite the fact that slave is a human being.

If in GOD’s eyes it is justified and proper, who then we are to argue about it? Above all, this is GOD’s Law, He established, and it must be followed as it is written.
And if GOD established rules for slavery, this means He has nothing against it as long as treatment of slaves done according to His rules and regulations, and if someone dislike it or disagree with GOD on this issue, then they can write angry letters to GOD, or ask him a question why He allowed it to happen.

Such people who disagree with GOD on any issue or on any of His statutes, are not Christians. Because Christian faith depends on believe and faith in GOD’S Statutes and Commandments, and if someone has no faith in His Commandments or dislike some of them, this means that such person is not of GOD, and definitely is not Christian.

So, this is also another false comment in your statement. GOD never rejected slavery, there is no statute in the Bible that prohibits slavery.

Click to expand...

Well, we agree that this is what it says in scripture. Others on this thread are denying the text itself.

alex2165 said:

You also wrote: “Slavery is the punishment meted out in Genesis 9, and that "curse of Ham" explicitly says that black people are to be enslaved.”

This is completely false statement of yours, because so called “black people” not even mentioned in the Bible under such name.

Click to expand...

One need only read the Bible to see that it explicitly mentions black people as being OK to enslave. That's because Ham's eldest son is "Cush", which literally is the Hebrew word for "black". That's why the "Curse of Ham" was referred to for many centuries by Christians in justifying the enslavement of Africans.

That, of course, doesn't mean that "only" blacks can be enslaved, as you point out (that Shem and Japhepth also have descendants).

alex2165 said:

You wrote: “Luckily, we Christians can see that God calls us to move past a literal reading of scripture, and reject slavery on the simple basis of compassion.”

GOD never calls us to move past a literal Scripture of the Bible, this is no true at all. If we ignore the literal Scripture of the Bible then we are not Christians, because all true Christians believe and know that the Holy Scripture is a Word of GOD and has to be taken whole, and not only certain parts of it.

Click to expand...

Well, being that the Bibles describe slavery as OK, women as property, the earth as flat, and diseases caused by demons and not germs, and so on, we might have to disagree on whether or not God is OK with us moving past a literal reading. Maybe leave that to another thread that's on one or the other of these topics specifically?

alex2165 said:

You wrote “Note that this is sex slavery.”
There is no such thing in the Bible as sex slavery, you again twisting the meaning of the situation and its original intent. Sarah wants a child, knowing that she gets older and older and afraid to die without producing any offspring.

Until now, as you may notice, there is no any feud or frictions between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar served Sarah as he maid and was treated fairly by Sarah, did not complain or run away from her. The only problem occurs than Hagar conceives from Abram and started despising her mistress Sarah. And we know very well that it’s means.

Abram never knew Hagar again after her pregnancy and after the birth of Ishmael, so how you can call it “sex slavery”? “Sex slaves” are a modern expression of women who willingly and unwillingly became prostitutes and have sex not with only one but with many men for profit.

Click to expand...

Abram had sex with his slave, and used this slave for sexual purposes. That's sex slavery. None of the details you listed are relevant or change that fact.

alex2165 said:

So according to you Abram is a sex offender? So tell me how many times he raped Hagar?

Click to expand...

Yes. Abram is both a slave master and a sex offender. I have no idea how many times he raped Hagar. Obviously, at least once, and probably a lot more times than that.

In Christ-

Papias

JayW said:

I'm not sure how slavery -- especially the kind formerly practiced in America -- falls in line with verse 39.

Click to expand...

Remember that Jesus was actually quoting Leviticus there. It's not like Jesus made up the Golden rule - it's from Leviticus, which happens to the be same book that describes slavery as perfectly fine. How can that be? Because "neighbor" means "another free person". You obviously can't treat a slave "as yourself" if you are free, unless you are going to simply free the slave.

In Christ -

Papias

pescador said:

The practice of slavery in New Testament, Roman empire times, was very, very different from the slavery practiced in the Confederate south. Slaves were often treated very, very well by their owners and given a great deal of responsibility.

Click to expand...

Wrong. There was a range of how slaves were treated, just as there was in the Old South. Many slaves were treated brutally, many were given responsibilities and treated well.

Jesus himself tells us that slaves then were treated brutally, describing how a slave could receive a severe, bloody, whipping - with no mention that there was anything wrong with that. (luke 12:47)

pescador said:

If one is an employee of a corporation, s/he is expected to carry out a role with responsibility, fulfilling the role defined by the owners, a.k.a. job responsibilities. S/he is given a salary to be able to buy the things necessary to survive (with some extras); these were provided to the slaves of New Testament times in return for their labor.

Click to expand...

I hope we agree that slavery is by nature abhorrent. It's morally deficient to try to candy-coat slavery by equating it to modern employment. In modern employment, the employee can choose to leave at any time - the slave can't. And that's not to mention that modern employees can't be brutally beaten until they are almost dead at the whim of their slavemaster - something that is explicitly allowed in the Bibles.

pescador said:

and depriving the one who didn't ....

Click to expand...

Um, a little honesty, here, please? The punishment was a severe beating - not just being "deprived". Is that a good thing, do you think?

In Christ-

Papias

Papias said:

<snip>



Um, a little honesty, here, please? The punishment was a severe beating - not just being "deprived". Is that a good thing, do you think?

In Christ-

Papias

Click to expand...

Is this what you call a severe beating? “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ (In other words, he deprived him of the money he was given. There is no beating involved.)

“‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away." (Again, deprived, not beaten.)

If you think that slaves were always beaten by their masters you have a wrong picture of the times.

I suggest reading Philemon as an example of how slaves could be treated by Christians.

pescador said:

Is this what you call a severe beating? “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! ...... Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ (In other words, he deprived him of the money he was given. There is no beating involved.).... (Again, deprived, not beaten.)

Click to expand...

So even though I gave you the chapter and verse (which has a hotlink so you don't have to go through all the effort of opening your Bible) in my post, you didn't bother to even click on the link?

Well, I'll have to copy and paste the verse itself. Luke 12:47, here:

Yes, that explicitly says "beaten", as in "with many blows". Fun stuff, huh? Oh yeah, and the person who did something without knowing any better - beat her or him too - just not as severely. Oh, and try not to beat anyone so severely that they die - but anything up to that is just fine.

pescador said:

If you think that slaves were always beaten by their masters you have a wrong picture of the times.

I suggest reading Philemon as an example of how slaves could be treated by Christians.

Click to expand...

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that slaves were "always" beaten by their masters. After all, a slavemaster will get tired after a while, even without that, they'll have to stop the beating so as to eat or sleep. Of course neither of us knows exactly what proportion of time was spent beating or raping slaves. However, we can see that beatings were common enough for Jesus to refer to them offhand (without any suggestion that there was any problem with that), and that Exodus and other parts of the Bible are clear that severe beatings are perfectly fine, since the slave is simply property.

Philemon? Are you kidding me? The letter where Paul is perfectly fine with the idea of human beings as property, and 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? Not like there is some other book of Philemon.

So, it sounds like you think slavery is OK, and that beating slaves is OK. Am I right about that? Or do you agree with me that enslaving and owning other human beings is never morally right, and beating enslaved human beings is never right?

-Papias

Papias said:

So even though I gave you the chapter and verse (which has a hotlink so you don't have to go through all the effort of opening your Bible) in my post, you didn't bother to even click on the link?

Well, I'll have to copy and paste the verse itself. Luke 12:47, here:

The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.​

Yes, that explicitly says "beaten", as in "with many blows". Fun stuff, huh? Oh yeah, and the person who did something without knowing any better - beat her or him too - just not as severely. Oh, and try not to beat anyone so severely that they die - but anything up to that is just fine.



Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that slaves were "always" beaten by their masters. After all, a slavemaster will get tired after a while, even without that, they'll have to stop the beating so as to eat or sleep. Of course neither of us knows exactly what proportion of time was spent beating or raping slaves. However, we can see that beatings were common enough for Jesus to refer to them offhand (without any suggestion that there was any problem with that), and that Exodus and other parts of the Bible are clear that severe beatings are perfectly fine, since the slave is simply property.

Philemon? Are you kidding me? The letter where Paul is perfectly fine with the idea of human beings as property, and 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? Not like there is some other book of Philemon.

So, it sounds like you think slavery is OK, and that beating slaves is OK. Am I right about that? Or do you agree with me that enslaving and owning other human beings is never morally right, and beating enslaved human beings is never right?

-Papias

Click to expand...

How convenient that you left out the part of Luke that precedes your quote! For your edification... "The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers."

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

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-- that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus who became my son while I was in chains. who became my son while I was in chains." That is how the great apostle regarded a slave! Later he says, " Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord." 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.

I won't even respond to the suggestion that I approve of slavery. 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. Some were slaves and others were free, and the former were often better off than the latter.