Slavery, a Guide

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
The writers of the New Testament weren't opposed to slavery.

Yes.

But there is a sense that they thought it irrelevant

It was relevant enough to mention in the Bible. And in doing so, the Bible instructed that you may enslave humans, as property, for life. The Bible instructs you may beat them, as long as they do not die. The Bible later instructs that the slave must obey their masters in everything.

"They are well-treated, and only punished, like rebellious children, if they are disobedient." The fact that the owners treated their adult slaves like children is testament to how woefully inadequate their theology is and was. I'm guessing that their children, when they grew up, moved away... but were the slaves allowed to do the same given that they were already grown up.

Wishful assumption, on your part :)

You can justify anything you want by being very selective about how you apply what the Bible says.

This is you, speaking about yourself here, right?

But it you take all of the words of the New Testament and hold them up to scrutiny next to Antebellum slavery, the disparities pile up very quickly.

Show me the best Verse(s) which demonstrate this assertion, and I will (yet again) show you where you are not in context :)

I would not say that the Bible is a pro-slavery document, nor an anti-slavery document.

If the Bible never mentioned the topic of slavery, then you could say this. However, the Bible does mention this topic, and instructs how a slave master may do so.

So the Bible just accepts slavery as something that is there, and then provides a way of making that manageable

Funny how the Bible does not treat lying, cheating, trespassing, and murder, in this way ;) God is all powerful, and yet; yields to man's wishes for 'slavery'....?

Like I've been stating, maybe all of the Verses, regarding slavery, are man-made alone. Makes more sense this way...
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
But you don't do you. You choose to stop before the instructions for Christian Households have ended.

I've gone line by line with you, on several occasions. And when I do, you no longer respond. Please look at the thread entirely, for examples...

I listed the later part of the Chapter entirely. It flops in and out of the topic of the 'enslaved' and the 'free'.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Well I can't actually access the site as it appears to be phishing. But I'm more interested in why you think Pastor Warren, writing 140 years ago better represents the Christian viewpoint than say, Gregory of Nyssa in the 5th century or Paul Copan in the 21st?
That is not the point. The point was to show that it is reasonable to support the Atlantic slave trade with the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I would not say that the Bible is a pro-slavery document, nor an anti-slavery document. Slavery is just there - it is something to be used (properly), but not necessarily directly opposed.

it is the treatment of slaves (among others) that is the issue that the Bible deals with in detail. So the Bible just accepts slavery as something that is there, and then provides a way of making that manageable, which Antebellum slavery seems to have largely ignored.
which is immoral of god to not say it was wrong.
To say slavery can be used properly is immoral and disgusting.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
That is not the point. The point was to show that it is reasonable to support the Atlantic slave trade with the Bible.
How does it do that though? Do you think that it puts forward a reasonable case for the Atlantic Slave Trade?
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
which is immoral of god to not say it was wrong.
To say slavery can be used properly is immoral and disgusting.
By whose standard is it immoral and disgusting and is that an objective morality?
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
I've gone line by line with you, on several occasions. And when I do, you no longer respond. Please look at the thread entirely, for examples...

I listed the later part of the Chapter entirely. It flops in and out of the topic of the 'enslaved' and the 'free'.
I am sure that you are aware that chapters weren't in the original document. Nor for that matter were section headings, though they are useful in gathering together verses covering a particular thought through to the end.

So ignore the chapter and read the whole section. Or you could switch from Colossians to the similar section in Ephesians 6, which doesn't spread over two chapters.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Wishful assumption, on your part :)
You mean that slave owners didn't let their children leave when they got old enough. I've not heard that before, perhaps you could find some reference to where that happened.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Show me the best Verse(s) which demonstrate this assertion, and I will (yet again) show you where you are not in context :)
Well you have already referred to Colossians 3, now extend it to include Colossians 4... and perhaps you could show how that is not in context.

What about Ephesians 6:5-9, although if you are really desperate to look at the whole context you should probably start at Ephesians 5:22.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
By whose standard is it immoral and disgusting and is that an objective morality?
Ah, so you're saying that slavery is not immoral or disgusting.
As usual, a Christian defending the Bible finds himself defending slavery. You can't do one without the other.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But this is the law for Israelites, not for Christians (cf Acts 15) so According to the NT, if the slaves are disobedient, they still need to be treated with justice and fairness: 'Masters treat your slaves with justice and fairness because you know that you also have a master in heaven.'

Do you think that the Atlantic slave traders treated their slaves with justice and fairness?
To answer your question: no, I don't think Atlantic slave traders - or the slaveowners who bought from them - treated their slaves fairly. But that is because I don't think slavery itself is fair. Do you think it is fair to buy a human, deprive them of their ok erty, and force them.to work against their will? Apparently, if it happened in Biblical times, You do.

Again, you are making - apparently without realising - the slavers' arguments for them. Because if you had asked many antebellum slavers that very question, they would have assured you that they did treat their slaves fairly. They.would have been happy to admit that some slaveowners were abusive, but that was their error, not a problem for the institution of slavery itself.

As Pastor Warren put it:
"Why are our slaves still peaceful and happy, notwithstanding the incendiary spirit of abolitionism? Why have they not revolted and thrown off the yoke of bondage? Why do hundreds go forth at the will of one man, to their daily labor, contented and happy? Why to we hear their merry laugh and cheerful songs, and see their sports of mirth – giving evidences, of joyous and happy hearts, and that, too, while they are as conscious as we are that they are held in involuntary servitude? Because Slavery is right; and because the condition of the slaves affords them all those privileges which would prove substantial blessings to them; and, too, because their Maker has decreed their bondage, and has given them, as a race, capacities and aspirations suited alone to this condition of life."

And that is exactly what you are saying: slavery is fine, provided you do it the right way. Listen to yourself, and you'll find you're arguing in favour of the institution of slavery.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well I can't actually access the site as it appears to be phishing. But I'm more interested in why you think Pastor Warren, writing 140 years ago better represents the Christian viewpoint than say, Gregory of Nyssa in the 5th century or Paul Copan in the 21st?

Has the text of the Bible gone through some major alteration in the past 140 years that I was not aware of? No? Then why should any of us care about who is analysing it?
You're making an ad hominem argument. Try to ignore who is making the case and simply focus on the important point: what did Pastor Warren say, and did he succeed in justifying his points from the Bible?

Apologies for giving a link you couldn't read. Here is the text of his speech (I hope you won't mind that I cut out a few less important parts to focus on the key points):

THE SCRIPTURAL VINDICATION OF SLAVERY
by Ebenezer W. Warren

I am to present this morning a Bible exposition of the subject of slavery. A sermon on a topic so unusual to a Southern audience, may need a word of explanation to justify it. Two reasons will be sufficient for this purpose:

1. Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible.

God instituted it in the days of Noah, and gave it His sanction again at Mt. Sinai. His Son commended it during his ministry on earth. The holy apostle Paul, exhorted his son Timothy to preach it; and Peter teaches a most important precept as to its obligations.

If God, through Noah, after the flood, and at Sinai, through the Law—if Christ during his ministry, and the apostles in their writings, instituted, regulated and promulgated slavery—it is not less imperative on me, to “declare the whole counsel of God” on this subject, than it is on any other, which the wise and beneficent Creator has seen proper to reveal to man.

2. The public mind needs enlightening from the sacred teachings of Inspiration on this subject.

… it will not be denied by any sane man, that the Bible does recognize the owner’s right to his slave as property, and regulates the relation – therefore slavery is not sin.

Injustice, oppression, and wrong of every characteristic are rebuked and denounced in the Bible, but it no where rebukes or denounces slavery, but upon the contrary establishes and perpetuated it – therefore is neither unjust, oppressive, nor wrong. A higher law than the Bible must be found before slavery can be condemned.

Slavery Ordained and Perpetuated by God

More than two thousand years before the christian era, slavery was instituted by decree of heaven, and published to the world by Noah, a “preacher of righteousness.” Here is the decree, Genesis 9:25-27, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants, shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” The Jews descended from Shem, the Europeans and Americans from Japheth, the Africans from Ham, the father of Canaan.

To show that the above language was the announcement of heaven’s decree concerning slavery, and that Noah was speaking as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, we have only to refer to its explanation and fulfillment by the descendants of Shem, as recorded in the 25th chapter of Leviticus. God gave to Abraham, a descendant of Shem, and to his seed after him the land of the Canaanites, into the possession of which they came in the days of Joshua. After the children of Israel came into the possession of the land, God gave them the following instruction as to bringing the people into bondage: “Both thy bond men and thy bond maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you (these were the descendants of Canaan, and hence called Canaanites), of them shall ye BUY BOND MEN AND BOND MAIDS. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for possession; they shall be your bond men forever.” (verses 44-46)

Here is a decree from the Creator, giving to one man the right of holding another in involuntary servitude. Man holding his fellow man as his property, and enjoined to perpetuate that property by inheritance to his children, forever.

Three points are here gained.

1. The establishment of slavery by divine decree.
2. The right to buy and sell men and women into bondage.
3. The perpetuity of the institution by the same authority.

A theocratic government, that is, one in which God, as the ruler, gives immediate direction, was established over the Israelites and continued for about four hundred years. The government was fully organized at Mount Sinai. The Constitution (called the Decalogue) given on that occasion, is considered the basis of all good law, and the standard of moral action, in every age of the world down to the present time – it is as of universal application as the gospel of Christ. It guarantees to the slaveholder the peaceable and unmolested right to his slave property, in language as emphatic as does the Constitution of the United States. Hear its enactment on this subject.

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife, nor his MAN SERVANT, not his MAID SERVANT, nor his ox, nor his ass, not anything that is thy neighbor’s”

Is a man entitled to the unmolested occupation of his house? This Divine Constitution guarantees to him the same right to his servants. Has any man the right to interfere with the domestic relation of husband and wife? Equally secure is the relation of master and servant made by this enactment of heaven. Should a man’s right to the exclusive and perpetual possession of his ox, or his ass, or of any other property of which he may be possessed, be secured to him by constitutional enactment? No more so, determined the unerring wisdom of the most high God, than the right of masters to their slaves.

Had God, the Great Law Giver, been opposed to slavery, he would perhaps have said, “thou shalt not hold property in man: thou shalt not enslave thy fellow being, for all men are born free and equal.” Instead of reproving the sin of covetousness, he would have denounced the sin of slavery; but instead of this denunciation, when He became the Ruler of his people, He established, regulated and perpetuated slavery by special enactment, and guaranteed the unmolested rights of masters to their slaves by Constitutional provision.



CHRIST RECONCILED AND SANCTIONED SLAVERY

The blessed Saviour descended from a slave-holder, Abraham. This “father of the faithful,” held as many bondmen, “born in his house and bought with his money,” as perhaps any slaveholder in the South. When he was chosen out, as the one “in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” not a word of Divine disapprobation, on account of his being a slave-holder was uttered.

His descendants, the Jews, up to the time of their national dispersion, were as emphatically a slave-holding people as we Georgians are.

The only qualification which is due to this remark, is founded on the captivity and wars which robbed them of much of their property. Such was the case when the Saviour came among them.

He reproved them for their sins. Calling them the works of the flesh and of the devil. He denounced idolatry, covetousness, adultery, fornification, hypocrisy, and many other sins of less moral turpitude, but never once reproved them for holding slaves; though He alluded to it frequently, yet never with an expression of the slightest disapprobation.

Many gospel truths He illustrates most happily by an allusion to the institution, and by implication, endorses and commends it. The following is a case in point:

“Which of you having a servant plowing or feeding the cattle, will say unto him by and by when he is come from the field, go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me till I have eaten and drunken; and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.” – Luke 17:7-9

How true to Southern life, in this picture, drawn by the Divine pencil. Here is a servant laboring in the field, he is called home to prepare food for the meal, commanded to stand around the table and serve, and when he is done, no thanks are expressed to him, because he has only done his duty.

The following language is said by Paul, to be the teachings of our Saviour … Let those whose are under the yoke, as bondmen, esteem their masters worthy of all honor, lest reproach be brought upon the name of God and his doctrine – and let those whose masters are believers, not despise them because they are brethren, but serve them with the more subjection, because they who claim the benefit (of their labor) are believing and beloved. THUS TEACH AND EXHORT.” – 1 Tim. 6:1-3
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
@Silly Uncle Wayne Rooney
Continuing:
Here we are taught:

1. That the disciples of Christ held slaves.
2. That this slavery was in accordance with the doctrine or teachings of God.
3. That a failure on the part of they servants to esteem their masters worthy of honor, or obedience, was considered by Christ, a reproach to the name and doctrine of God. Because He had commanded it, and whosoever disobeyed reproached his Maker.
4. That christianity did not oblige the master to liberate his slave, but upon the contrary bound the slave to serve his master with the “more subjection.” …

Lastly, Timothy was enjoined by Paul to explain and enforce in his ministry the above instructions of Christ.

I leave the apostle in the three following verses to give you a graphic portraiture of some communities “North of Mason & Dixon’s line.”

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railing, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth.”

Such is now the sad condition of our country, resulting from the predominant influence of characters just described by the inspired pensman, who have set at naught the doctrine of God, and established the “higher law” that our citizens true to the Divine injunction, have felt that the time has come when “from such they must withdraw themselves.”

PAUL SANCTIONS SLAVERY, BY ENFORCING UPON SERVANTS, OBEDIENCE TO MASTERS – THIS HE DOES BOTH BY EXAMPLE AND PRECEPT

1. By example.

Philemon, an Asiatic christian owned a very wicked and perverse slave, named Onesimus. On a certain occasion, this slave robbed this master of some valuables – and to prevent detection and punishment, ran a way. By some means or other, he reached Rome, where Paul was at that time preaching. A merciful Providence led the wicked fugitive to the house of God, where he was awakened by the word and spirit of God, and converted to the “faith and morality of the gospel.” With unaffected honesty, he confessed to the apostle his wickedness and injustice to his master.

Paul perceived in him the indications of gifts, which fitted him for a more important post than any which he could hold as the slave of Philemon. He wished to keep him in Rome, and employ him in preaching the gospel. His master Philemon, was so devoted a Christian that Paul had heard, even in Rome, of his “love of faith towards Jesus and towards the saints.” His unusual piety was known and spoken of everywhere. Could not Paul on this account venture to keep this reclaimed slave, who had never before been profitable to this master – and especially so, as he desired to make him a missionary? No! Onesimus anxious to repair the wrong he had done his master, and Paul recognizing Philemon’s right to the fugitive slave – without delay, prepares a letter and sends it back by Onesimus stating the facts to the master, asking him to forgive his slave for the past – and assuring him, that now he had embraced the gospel, he would be a profitable servant ….

Here is the example of a holy man of God acting under the influence of the divine teacher – the adoption of which example, had it been considered worthy of imitation by our northern brethren, would have made us one, in the bonds of a fraternal and perpetual union.

Had Paul considered slavery wrong, here was a most appropriate occasion to express that belief. Had it been opposed to the genius and precepts of that holy Christianity, of which he was the inspired expounder, he was bound by the highest obligations ever imposed upon man to declare that fact, And with what great propriety could he have done so, to his excellent and pious brother Philemon. But not the slightest intimation of that sort fell from his lips.

2. Paul’s precepts to slaves are pointed and forcible.

Eph. 6:5-8. Servants, (Bondsmen,) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling with singleness of heart, as unto Christ; not with eye service as men pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as unto the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

These facts are here taught.

1. That slaves are required by their religious obligations, to obey their masters. The master then has a corresponding right to command, else the servant would be under no obligation to obey – slavery is here endorsed as divinely right, because to the master is given the divine right to command.

Then the Divine right to slavery is here expressly given – but God never grants to any man the divine right to sin. Therefore slavery is not sin.

2. That in obeying the master, the slave is obeying Christ. “In singleness of your heart as unto Christ – doing the will of God from the heart!” A cheerful and hearty obedience to the master is a part of the slaves duty to God. His religion enjoins it. But his obligation depends upon his servitude – were there no servitude there would be no obligation. If the servitude is wrong and wicked, then the obligation is of no force, it is only the command of an usurper – who violates the natural rights of man. But God says the servant is bound not alone by the superior will of the master, but by Divine law, to obey from the heart, his masters commandments – God’s law binds no man to sin, or to do wrong at the command of another, but requires him to avoid the very appearance of evil. His commendation of slavery is here found in his enforcement of its obligations.

3. The apostle also teaches the truth here that God will reward the slave for his faithfulness to this master.

So profoundly is Paul impressed with the right of masters to control, and the duty of slaves to obey, that he urges upon Titus, (2:9-10) a young minister, as one of the sacred obligations of his high office, to “exhort servants to be obedient to their own masters, and to please them well in all things, not answering again (i.e. not replying to or questioning the master’s right) not purloining (i.e. not stealing) but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.” It is remarkable that this apostle should invariably conclude his exhortation to servants, by appealing to their obligations to God, as the incentive to obedience and faithfulness to their masters, clearly proving that disobedience to masters is rebellion against God. Hitherto, Paul has not, in so many words, given any instruction as to the duty of servants towards masters whose deportment to them is harsh and oppressive. I refer, therefore, for specific instruction upon this subject, to the writings of another apostle (1 Peter 2:18,19). “Servants, be subject to your masters, with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, for this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God, endure grief and suffering wrongfully.”

Here is the inspired injunction making it the duty of a bondman, which is to be performed in good conscience toward God, to submit quietly to the ill treatment of a churlish or bad tempered master. This obligation of the slave does not rest upon the right of his master thus to treat him, for he has no such right, either moral or legal, but is bound to “give unto them that which is just and equal;” but the servants obligation is derived from the moral and religious duty, which binds him to be faithful to God and man.

I have now proven clearly from the sacred pages of inspiration,

1. That slavery was instituted by God, who accompanied it with his decree making it perpetual.
2. That Christ recognized its existence, enforced its obligations, and regulated its connections.
3. That Paul and Peter, inspired apostles, elaborated upon the subject, and showed the religious obligations under which servants are bound to obey their masters.

I commend the careful study of the New Testament to Masters – that they may be taught of God, the manner in which they should treat their Slaves. I do this with the more pleasure, because I have observed for years past a growing desire among our citizens to do their whole duty conscientiously before God, to their slaves. You will not find in this sacred revelation a single injunction requiring you to emancipate your slaves.

I desire to meet one plausible, but specious objection to slavery, urged by the abolitionists before I take my seat.

It is said that one single passage in the gospel, imperatively requires every master at once to emancipate his slaves. It is recorded in Mat. 7:12. “Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.”

it is thought, that if the master would desire liberty, were he a slave, he is bound by this rule, to liberate his slave. But his argument is specious, and this construction, if applied to the various relations of life will subvert all the laws and regulations of society and governments.

A criminal is arraigned, tried and found guilty of a violationof the law – but the judge would not desire to be punished were he in the criminal’s place – is he bound therefore to release him? ….

A desire entertained by a servant to be set at liberty, is an unlawful desire, because its accomplishment, would violate the “law” which enjoins perpetual servitude ….
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The writers of the New Testament weren't opposed to slavery.
Quite so. And that's quite a damning admission you just made. Jesus and his followers saw nothing wrong with one of the greatest evils of history.
But there is a sense that they thought it irrelevant - Galatians clearly shows that there should be no distinction between slave or free,
I've seen many Christians make this.mistake before. Read the whole chapter in context, and you know what Paul was talking about? Circumcision.
Paul berates the Corinthians for showing partiality when conducting a love feast - where the rich get in first and get the choice pickings.
Chapter and verse please?
"They are well-treated, and only punished, like rebellious children, if they are disobedient." The fact that the owners treated their adult slaves like children is testament to how woefully inadequate their theology is and was.
Really? Please quote the Bible where it says that people should not be enslaved and that enslaved people should be set free.
You can justify anything you want by being very selective about how you apply what the Bible says.
I'm afraid this is exactly what you are doing. You are describing your own flawed arguments.
But it you take all of the words of the New Testament and hold them up to scrutiny next to Antebellum slavery, the disparities pile up very quickly.
Really? While There are certainly differences (quite natural, given the gap of centuries between them) I don't see any major disparities. Please point them out.
I would not say that the Bible is a pro-slavery document, nor an anti-slavery document. Slavery is just there - it is something to be used (properly), but not necessarily directly opposed. is the treatment of slaves (among others) that is the issue that the Bible deals with in detail. So the Bible just accepts slavery as something that is there, and then provides a way of making that manageable,
With this, You have just lost the debate, and admitted to it. You have conceded that the Bible considers slavery a natural part of the world and has no objection to it, if done properly. This means the Bible is in favour of slavery.
You protest that the American slavers were in the wrong and deny any relation between your arguments and theirs; but in fact, they are one we the same.
which Antebellum slavery seems to have largely ignored.
On the contrary. There were plenty of rules among slaveholding Americans about the second rights of slaves and how they should be treated properly. And since you have just argues that Biblical slavery was fine so long as the slaves were well treated, I don't see what your problem is with American slavery.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I am sure that you are aware that chapters weren't in the original document. Nor for that matter were section headings, though they are useful in gathering together verses covering a particular thought through to the end.

So ignore the chapter and read the whole section. Or you could switch from Colossians to the similar section in Ephesians 6, which doesn't spread over two chapters.

I'm aware that each Chapter, which makes references to 'slaves', does not devote an entire Chapter in doing so... It does not matter how these Verses were intended - (by chapter or not). The Bible flips in and out of speaking about separate laws between the free and the enslaved. It does not matter what Chapter, or whatever, you select. If such a section speaks about slaves in the Bible, it specifies it is speaking about 'slaves' when doing so. The Bible does this to assure the reader that such 'slavery provisions' are not also applicable to the free.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
You mean that slave owners didn't let their children leave when they got old enough. I've not heard that before, perhaps you could find some reference to where that happened.

Your wishful assumption is in reference to "slave masters treating their slaves mercifully" (paraphrased). All a slave need do, is to disobey their slave master in anything. Which-in-turn, warrants a justified beating, just short of death, for life.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
I'm aware that each Chapter, which makes references to 'slaves', does not devote an entire Chapter in doing so... It does not matter how these Verses were intended - (by chapter or not). The Bible flips in and out of speaking about separate laws between the free and the enslaved. It does not matter what Chapter, or whatever, you select. If such a section speaks about slaves in the Bible, it specifies it is speaking about 'slaves' when doing so. The Bible does this to assure the reader that such 'slavery provisions' are not also applicable to the free.
Which conveniently ignores the fact that the Bible talks also about masters of slaves, which is the whole point that is trying to be made.

Perhaps a different tack should be tried. How about you quote Colossians 4:1 to me and explain why it has no relevance to the argument.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Well you have already referred to Colossians 3, now extend it to include Colossians 4... and perhaps you could show how that is not in context.

Col. 3:1-10 is instructions to Christians -- (who are free). How do we know? Stay tuned...
Col. 3:11 mentions 'slaves and free', but you must address the context as you continue to read on...
Col. 3:12-21 again speaks to free Christians - (as the classified "slaves" are instructed to do otherwise, just below).
Col. 3:22-25 tells the 'slaves' specifically, to serve your slave masters as hard as they can in everything. Surely, it is common knowledge that a free person is not told to serve any human master in everything, right?

Col. 4:1 tells the slave masters to treat their slaves "right' and 'fair'. But the Bible has already established that the slave is to obey the master in everything, and the slave master is the judge of their slave's obedience. The Bible also goes out of it's way, long before, to assure the reader that a 'slave' is his master's property.

Col. 4:2-6 does not again mention the 'slaves' specifically. Sure, the classified slaves could surely decide to follow such Verse, but it will not change the 'slaves' assigned situation... That they are to obey their lifetime slave masters in everything ;)
 
Upvote 0