Slavery, a Guide

cvanwey · Jun 26, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
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.

I already did, in post #700. Wow, are we this high in post numbers already...?

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
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?

Looking through this particular post, I wasn't impressed. He falls into the trap of deciding what the Bible says and then drawing out the passages and verses that support that view while ignoring the ones that don't.

I might cut him some slack because we have the benefit of hindsight, but his ignorance of the treatment of slaves is embarrassing.

And I am not making an ad hominem argument against anyone. I want to know why you think that Warren's sermon represents Christianity, whereas the theological writings of the vast majority of the last 1900 years does not.

You must have some reason for referring to an obscure 160 year old sermon rather than the majority Christian worldview on the subject and I'd be interested in finding out why in order to determine what it is the best approach to answering your questions.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
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.

I think I would agree with Warren on this, but I saw no indication in what I read of his sermon that he understood what the 'right way' was. I may have missed it, but I saw no encouragement to free slaves every 7 years, or to support those that escaped from cruel masters (not sending them back) or for not buying anyone that had been kidnapped on pain of death or for masters to treat their slaves as brothers in Christ.

If Warren couldn't articulate the right way, is there any surprise that the atrocities occurred.

Building a theology on part of the Bible is a sure-fire way to get it wrong.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Mine and yes.

How is it objective if not everyone agrees with you?

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

Warren:

InterestedAtheist said:
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.”

Well I've read the rest of it and I had to cringe way too many times. This guy is so enamoured of his idea that he takes a bunch of truths, weaves them into his own worldview and then projects that worldview back onto the Bible and makes it seem as though he has drawn it all out.

I'm always wary of any preacher who has to tell his audience that if they disagree with him there is something wrong with them. They are the ones that usually turn out to be wrong and generally are veering so far from the truth that the only way they can shore up their house of cards is to prevent anyone from thinking differently.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
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.

Actually they didn't see it as one of the greatest of evils of history, and I don't think many historians think that either. Certainly, even if they think it evil, it's not up there with child sacrifice, infanticide or many other great evils.

Part of the reason for this is that it wasn't as bad as some people would like it it be in the Ancient Near East. The main reason for this in Rome for example is that the population was approximately 85% slaves which meant that they had to be looked after carefully to prevent slave revolts.

In Palestine there is little indication that slaves were ill treated and examples are given of those slaves who clearly loved their masters. Jesus made a point of condemning those who were misusing the law to their own benefit and had their been any kind of misuse of the slave laws, I think he would have called out the Jewish leaders on the subject as he did on every other thing that they were misusing. The fact that he didn't is indication that it definitely wasn't a great evil.

Paul, heading out into the wider Roman world, had far more interaction with slaves and their owners, bringing both into the Kingdom of God, but aside from warning masters to treat their slaves decently, had virtually nothing to say on the subject.

What the church did was break down barriers. Slave and Free came together for feasts, discussion and fellowship. Essentially the church broke down barriers (as it did with the treatment of women). A slave and his master could sit in the congregation together worshipping the same God and neither was better or worse than the other. Only their economic circumstances marked them out, but that is no different than today where I go to church alongside both the rich and the poor, the abled and disabled, the foolish and the wise. We stand and worship the same God and we greet each other as brother or sister (COVID excepting).

Slaves were treated with dignity within the church, which is why they flocked to it in droves... and eventually why the church started to undermine the structure of slavery.

I think the Atlantic Slave Trade was one of the greatest evils of history, but mainly because of the way that the slaves were gained and treated, none of which can be supported by the application of scripture.

cvanwey · Jun 27, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Warren:

This guy is so enamoured of his idea that he takes a bunch of truths, weaves them into his own worldview and then projects that worldview back onto the Bible and makes it seem as though he has drawn it all out.

How is the above any different than what you are doing in this entire thread? You claim the Bible does not support the antebellum slave trade, when it clearly does.

The Bible instructs that a slave master may buy slaves from the nations around them, for life, and also treat them as property -- (as long as they are not an Israelite). Lev. 25

The Bible instructs that a slave master may beat their slave(s), just short of death, with complete impunity -- (because the slave is their property). The Bible does not really give a distinct guide as to what warrants a beating --- (stay tuned). Ex. 21

Later on, the Bible then tells it's readers that a slave is to obey their slave masters in everything. Col. 3

Thus, the Bible establishes that God is a-okay with life time slavery. God is also a-okay with beating your slaves. God is further a-okay with telling the slaves to obey their slave masters in everything.

And to get back to the Verse for which you want to now polarize...

"Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."

What is 'right and fair' is that a 'slave' is to remain subservient to his human master in everything. And if (s)he does not, then what is "right and fair", is his/her master's justified and deemed wrath -- (as already noted in Ex. 21).

Thanks

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
I've seen many Christians make this.mistake before. Read the whole chapter in context, and you know what Paul was talking about? Circumcision.

Not quite. Circumcision is probably the reason that the letter was written, but Paul builds up his case bit by bit and in doing so brings equality to all believers regardless of their circumstances.

So the whole of chapter 3 is about Paul pointing out that all are heirs of Abraham, ending in For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith. For all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise.

The point is that we are all in the same situation with regards to God and his promises. The Christian slave is a descendent of Abraham. The Christian master is a descendent of Abraham. Both are Brothers in Christ.

Even when circumcision is mentioned in the following chapters it is about attempting to bring together Jew and Greek equally without circumcision being a divider: neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that matters is a new creation.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
Chapter and verse please?

1 Corinthians 11:17-34, but in particular verse 21. The commentaries that I read indicated that the problem was that the rich would get there first and indulge and those that were more restricted (e.g. slaves, but they may not have been the only ones) were left with the dregs.

E.g Kent Dobson in the NIV First Century Study Bible says "The Corinthians were apparently following the Roman dining customs in which the rich and powerful dined in elaborate feasts, sat in order of rank and importance, and gave the poor the leftovers. The Lord's Supper, by contrast, was to communicate social equality.' (page 1467).

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
I'm afraid this is exactly what you are doing. You are describing your own flawed arguments.

Consider this. There a recipe for baking a cake. A baker decides to be selective about which instructions to follow, ignoring some, changing the order of others.

Do you think that the cake that result will be in any way edible?

In the same way if someone is building a theology by ignoring key passages they are not going to get a valid result.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
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.

The aforementioned Galatians 3. Mark 12:31 (and similar references in other gospels); John 13:34; Colossians 4:1, Ephesians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 13:4-7; James 5:1-6; 1 Peter 4:7-9; 1 John 2:9-11

And that is a fairly random selection, I could find dozens more in reading through the gospels with ease.

If you go searching for the negative you will find it, but that is in no way reflective of the overall goal of Christ to bring liberation to captives, freedom to the oppressed and Jubilee (Luke 4:18-19, quoting Isaiah).

None of this is against slavery per se, only the particular aspects of it that were plainly wrong, such as kidnapping (none of these people should have been enslaved in the first place), torture, rape, infanticide, injustice. In short none of it had any aspect of Christian Brotherly love in it.

Anyone who knows and loves Jesus also knows and loves his brother and would lay down his life for him (John 15:13). Do you think the slave traders or owners involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade would have laid down their lives for their slaves?

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
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.

Can I refer you to your own words as an answer: if done properly.

There is no way that the Atlantic Slave Trade can be seen as slavery done properly. It is slavery done according to the whims of the rich and powerful, people who were motivated not by the love of Christ, but by the love of money in opposition to the very warnings of Jesus (Matthew 6:24).

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 27, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
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.

Can I refer you to post 538 (I think that is the one) or better yet the updated version I posted on another thread a few days ago for the full iist of problems with American slavery.

cvanwey · Jun 27, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Not quite. Circumcision is probably the reason that the letter was written, but Paul builds up his case bit by bit and in doing so brings equality to all believers regardless of their circumstances.

So the whole of chapter 3 is about Paul pointing out that all are heirs of Abraham, ending in For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith. For all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you areAbraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise.

The point is that we are all in the same situation with regards to God and his promises. The Christian slave is a descendent of Abraham. The Christian master is a descendent of Abraham. Both are Brothers in Christ.

Even when circumcision is mentioned in the following chapters it is about attempting to bring together Jew and Greek equally without circumcision being a divider: neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that matters is a new creation.

Your given 'rationale' is quite fascinating. Please carefully consider what you are conceding here, and see how you pretty much just lost the argument entirely...

Sure, all Chrisrtians are 'slaves to Christ'. But God also endorses how humans are to treat one another... Both the slave and a slave master answer to God, sure. However, the slave not only answers to God, but also to the slave master in everything. So, while slaves are on planet earth, they may be enslaved, and treated like property, for life.

The Bible instructs each and every role for humans... Something along the following pecking order....

God > men > women >/= slaves > animals

If you are classified as a 'slave', sure, you may ultimately answer to God; but you ALSO answer to your master.

"In a nutshell, just buck up... It will all soon be over, once you die." But in the mean time, please answer to your slave master in everything. And if the slave master deems you insubordinate, prepare for a justified biblical beating. And please also remember, the slave master may do so, without any recourse. Because remember, you (the slave) are his property.

cvanwey · Jun 27, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Can I refer you to your own words as an answer: if done properly.

"if done properly" coincides with Biblical slavery, which coincides with antebellum slavery practices. Why? Well, let's get repetitious, yet again.

Ex. 21 instructs that a slave master keeps all slave offspring. Please remember what I informed you many posts ago... You could make quite the business for yourself, by legally breeding slaves. The Bible endorses this practice...

"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Lev. 25 instructs that you may buy slaves from the nations around you. A slave breeder can legally sell all his bred slaves to would-be slave masters. These are all fair and square commercial deals, ala the Bible.

I would also imagine that many were born into slavery. Which, of course, means the slaves are good to sell, as they are freebies.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 28, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
How is it objective if not everyone agrees with you?

Same way Christian morality is objective when not all Christians agree what it is.

InterestedAtheist · Jun 28, 2021

cvanwey said:
Your given 'rationale' is quite fascinating. Please carefully consider what you are conceding here, and see how you pretty much just lost the argument entirely...

@Silly Uncle Wayne , cvanwey is quite correct here. It seems clear that you have two ideas clearly in your head: one, that slavery is a bad thing; and two, that the Bible is a good one. Therefore, the Bible must be against slavery. You have argued for this at considerable length. Except, confusingly, you also maintain that the Bible is neutral on the question of slavery! Please try to get your story straight.

I'll reply to the points you've made, but there is one thing I'd like to point out first: you have not engaged Pastor Warren's arguments at all. I'd very much like to see you try to do so - and, if you can't, to admit it.

InterestedAtheist · Jun 28, 2021

Consider one thing. If you prove me wrong, and it is shown that slavery was not, in fact, supported or endorsed by Christianity…then so what? Why should I care at all?
But can you say that if the Bible was shown to be pro-slavery, then you wouldn’t mind at all? I doubt it. And this explains why you can look at the words of the Bible, clearly saying that people can buy, sell, keep and beat slaves as much as they like…and deny that the Bible supported or endorsed slavery at all.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Looking through this particular post, I wasn't impressed. He falls into the trap of deciding what the Bible says and then drawing out the passages and verses that support that view while ignoring the ones that don't.

I think the clearest proof that Pastor Warren made a strong case for slavery being based on the Christian religion is that you are clearly unwilling to engage with his arguments. All you can do is try to handwave them away. If his arguments really make no sense, then it is your duty – both as a good Christian and as a person on a debating forum – to point out why. If you can’t do this, at least please be honest and say so.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
And I am not making an ad hominem argument against anyone. I want to know why you think that Warren's sermon represents Christianity, whereas the theological writings of the vast majority of the last 1900 years does not. You must have some reason for referring to an obscure 160 year old sermon rather than the majority Christian worldview on the subject and I'd be interested in finding out why in order to determine what it is the best approach to answering your questions.

Who’s obscure? Pastor Warren was a well-known speaker of his time, and this sermon was delivered “before a packed sanctuary” and does an excellent job of summarizing the views of antebellum southern Christians. Second, exactly what “majority Christian worldview” on slavery are you speaking of? Christian views on slavery have been pro-, anti- and neutral over the last two thousand years.

And again, please stop ducking the question. We’re on a debating forum, and you have been presented with an argument. If you can’t rebut it, then say so.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I think I would agree with Warren on this, but I saw no indication in what I read of his sermon that he understood what the 'right way' was. I may have missed it, but I saw no encouragement to free slaves every 7 years, or to support those that escaped from cruel masters (not sending them back) or for not buying anyone that had been kidnapped on pain of death or for masters to treat their slaves as brothers in Christ. If Warren couldn't articulate the right way, is there any surprise that the atrocities occurred.

Pastor Warren spent most of his sermon speaking about “the right way” to own slaves, and why it was in accord with the Christian way of life.
As to the rest, you are in error. Freeing slaves every seven years applied only to Hebrew slaves. You are, perhaps, unaware that there were two types of slavery in Biblical times. One of them was a type of indentured servitude, in which people entered slavery voluntarily; and the other was chattel slavery, for prisoners of war, foreign captives, and the children of slaves.
Not sending back escaped slaves applied only if they were slaves of your enemies who had escaped to you; the rule against kidnappers was in order to ensure that slavery was a regulated business, to discourage unlicensed slave traders; and as for masters treating their slaves as brothers in Christ, since the Bible tells slaves to obey their masters AND tells masters how they can punish their slaves, it’s clear that treating your slave well means punishing them justly – that is, if they have been rebellious or disobedient.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Well I've read the rest of it and I had to cringe way too many times. This guy is so enamoured of his idea that he takes a bunch of truths, weaves them into his own worldview and then projects that worldview back onto the Bible and makes it seem as though he has drawn it all out.

I’m afraid you are the one who is projecting your own views on to this. In your mind, slavery is a bad thing and the Bible a good one, and so you must come up with the most twisted rationalisations to explain away the clear truth that the Bible encourages and supports slavery as part of society.

You have a lot to say about how foolish and wrongheaded Pastor Warren is. But you have yet to provide any actual rebuttals to his arguments.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Actually they didn't see it as one of the greatest of evils of history, and I don't think many historians think that either. Certainly, even if they think it evil, it's not up there with child sacrifice, infanticide or many other great evils.

Jesus and his followers didn’t see slavery as a great evil. Which is kind of the point. As to the argument that slavery was not so bad in Biblical times, I’ve seen it many times – and always from Christians who wish to whitewash their holy book so it looks good in comparison with modern slavery.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Part of the reason for this is that it wasn't as bad as some people would like it it be in the Ancient Near East. The main reason for this in Rome for example is that the population was approximately 85% slaves which meant that they had to be looked after carefully to prevent slave revolts.

Exactly as I just said. “Biblical slavery was really quite humane,” Christians are eager to assure us. But don’t you realise how you are echoing pro-slavery arguments? This is just the kind of thing they would have said! Indeed, they did – a large part of Pastor Warren’s sermon is about how well slaves are treated in Georgia, how grateful they are for it, and how this is a clear indicator that slavery is a natural part of life. If you wish to disagree with his arguments, please realise that you are undermining your own as you do so.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
What the church did was break down barriers. Slave and Free came together for feasts, discussion and fellowship. Essentially the church broke down barriers (as it did with the treatment of women). A slave and his master could sit in the congregation together worshipping the same God and neither was better or worse than the other.

I have to point out: they were still master and slave. The Bible is a pro-slavery document; it does not speak out against slavery, but rather encourages masters and slaves to affirm their roles.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Slaves were treated with dignity within the church, which is why they flocked to it in droves... and eventually why the church started to undermine the structure of slavery.

This is exactly what the pro-slavery apologists of America would have said. Slaves brought from Africa were much better off; the Christian system of slavery was of the greatest benefit to them. Does it not strike you as ironic that in a debate against slavery, you have to mimic slavers’ arguments?

And as to the Church undermining slavery – if it did that, then where, pray tell, did the slavery of the New World come from? Answer: it was the Christian countries that instituted it.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I think the Atlantic Slave Trade was one of the greatest evils of history, but mainly because of the way that the slaves were gained and treated, none of which can be supported by the application of scripture.

I think you need to learn a bit more about Biblical slavery. You seem to have a rather idealized view of it. In fact, Biblical slavery was just as brutal as its modern counterpart, with people from other lands being captured, and slaves being beaten as much as their owners wished. There is, I hope, no need to lengthen this post by quoting passages you’ve been shown many times now.

InterestedAtheist · Jun 28, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Not quite. Circumcision is probably the reason that the letter was written, but Paul builds up his case bit by bit and in doing so brings equality to all believers regardless of their circumstances.

With regards to circumcision, because that was what he was talking about. I’m afraid your idealism is showing again here. While Paul did indeed want to make Christianity appealing to all classes, he wasn’t in the least interested in bringing equality to society. He just meant that any type of person can become a Christian.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
1 Corinthians 11:17-34, but in particular verse 21. The commentaries that I read indicated that the problem was that the rich would get there first and indulge and those that were more restricted (e.g. slaves, but they may not have been the only ones) were left with the dregs.

That’s nice, and probably quite a good thing. But as far as being an abolitionist argument in a book that tells you how to buy, keep and beat slaves, and tell the slaves that their obedience is pleasing to God, it means absolutely nothing.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Consider this. There a recipe for baking a cake. A baker decides to be selective about which instructions to follow, ignoring some, changing the order of others. Do you think that the cake that result will be in any way edible? In the same way if someone is building a theology by ignoring key passages they are not going to get a valid result.

The problem is, the “key passages” you seem to think that I, or Pastor Warren, are ignoring, are nothing of the kind. All we have is general admonitions to be nice to people, which mean nothing at all to a book that gives specific instructions on how and why you should take, keep and beat your slaves.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
The aforementioned Galatians 3. Mark 12:31 (and similar references in other gospels); John 13:34; Colossians 4:1, Ephesians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 13:4-7; James 5:1-6; 1 Peter 4:7-9; 1 John 2:9-11

And that is a fairly random selection, I could find dozens more in reading through the gospels with ease.

Well, I think we now have a clear case. On my side, saying that the Bible is in favour of slavery, we have specific admonitions that it’s okay to take slaves; that you can keep them; that you can punish them in horrible ways; that you can keep their children in perpetuity; and that slaves who obey their masters are pleasing to God. In short, that slavery is fine, and this is how you should do it.

On your side, what do you have?

“31 The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”

Pastor Warren, any comment?
“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 ….”

I hope that’s clear? Your next quote:

4 Masters, render unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
Fine. So, masters, treat your servants correctly. Don’t punish them unjustly. Only punish them if they have done wrong.

4 Love suffereth long, [and] is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Are you serious? Are you just going through the Bible searching for any verse with the word “love” in it?

5 Come now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you.
Does this have something to do with slavery?

7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore of sound mind, and be sober unto prayer: 8 above all things being fervent in your love among yourselves; for love covereth a multitude of sins: 9 using hospitality one to another without murmuring:
I’m not sure that reminding us that the authors of the Bible expected the world to end very soon helps your case.

9 He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now.
This has nothing at all to do with slavery.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
If you go searching for the negative you will find it, but that is in no way reflective of the overall goal of Christ to bring liberation to captives, freedom to the oppressed and Jubilee (Luke 4:18-19, quoting Isaiah).

This is just what I mean. You need to read the Bible with comprehension, not just looking for buzzwords to fit whatever case you want to make. In this case, Jesus was speaking of spiritual liberation, not physical. He was saying that people would be made free from the burdens of sin and suffering. He wasn’t saying that he was here to actually release physical captives from bondage. Jesus did refer to slaves more than once, and never with any intimation of disapproval for the institution itself.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
None of this is against slavery per se, only the particular aspects of it that were plainly wrong, such as kidnapping (none of these people should have been enslaved in the first place), torture, rape, infanticide, injustice. In short none of it had any aspect of Christian Brotherly love in it.

Look: I get that you think slavery was a bad thing, and I agree with you on this. But you can’t go putting your own words in the mouths of the Bible authors. You can’t say “because slavery was bad and the authors of the Bible were good they must have disapproved of slavery as I do,” because they clearly didn’t.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Anyone who knows and loves Jesus also knows and loves his brother and would lay down his life for him (John 15:13). Do you think the slave traders or owners involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade would have laid down their lives for their slaves?

Again, context. Who is Jesus talking to in this speech? His disciples. He is speaking to them at the Last Supper, and telling them to stay strong, to love one another, and to help one another, even if they face difficulties when He is gone.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Can I refer you to your own words as an answer: if done properly. There is no way that the Atlantic Slave Trade can be seen as slavery done properly. It is slavery done according to the whims of the rich and powerful, people who were motivated not by the love of Christ, but by the love of money in opposition to the very warnings of Jesus (Matthew 6:24).

Think about what you just said. You just said that it is possible for slavery to be done properly. With this said, can you please now admit that the Bible is a pro-slavery document? You’ve come very close to doing it several times now. Why not just own it? The Bible says that slavery is a good and important part of society.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Can I refer you to post 538 (I think that is the one) or better yet the updated version I posted on another thread a few days ago for the full list of problems with American slavery.

I’m afraid I found very little of use in post 538. If you meant another post, or can give me the link to where you made your arguments more clearly, I’d be glad to read it.

In the meantime, I would like to draw your attention to the considerable similarities between Biblical and American slavery.
First, both of them had a double system of slavery – “indentured” and “chattel.” Be careful, when you wish to argue that Biblical slavery was comparatively benevolent, that you are not describing the more lenient form for Hebrews, and forgetting the more brutal form of involuntary slavery reserved for foreign and lifetime slaves.
Second, please recall that the Bible shows that slaves could indeed be punished most brutally; and, conversely, there were safeguards in place in modern American slavery. If you say that there were laws that protected the rights of slaves in Biblical times, and that slaves could have the comforts of religion – well, that was exactly the case in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as well.
Thirdly, people were brought into slavery in very similar ways in both civilisations; through capture, sale and birth.

A final point: while I have gone to some length to answer your points, you have yet to address mine. You’ve done nothing to answer the case made by Pastor Warren except to dismiss it. It might be thought that a person who won’t answer an argument can’t answer it. Would you like to try?

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 28, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
It is not a question of what you or I think, but what they (at that time) thought. As far as I am aware Israel never ever suffered from any kind of slave revolt, which tells you that they were probably treated a lot better than in nations where slave revolts were regular occurrences and the guaranteed freedom of slaves that ran away was written into the Torah.

Peter J. Williams points out that the early English translations didn't use the word 'slave' anywhere. Servant was the term used throughout because that is what they saw it as, but culturally neither servant nor slave is a status we really have to deal with today (consider servants in manor houses 100 years ago and you will see that that particular way of life is almost gone).

As such we need to understand these terms as they would have not, how we would now. Consider that I suspect most in the Ancient Near East would think the USA as barbaric in the way it incarcerates people into prisons for years and years (I know I do). Culturally what we see as servants or slaves is not necessarily what was supposed to happen.

Go to a homeless person and say to them that if they work for a person they would be guaranteed a place to live and plenty of food for them and their family. Do you think that they would say 'no'?

...or go to a homeless person and say to them that if they work for a person they would be given a hovel to live in, subsistence food for them and their family, regular rape of their wives and daughters, sending away their sons somewhere else, being beaten for no good reason. Do you think that they would say 'yes'?

The difference in treatment shows that not only was the Atlantic slave trade immoral, but that servitude as the Jewish law depicts it is highly moral and may have even been sought after.

Well thanks for the debate. I don't think we will get anywhere further. I will say that it is a good thing that you think slavery is wrong and that God thinks it is wrong, I just think that you are blinded to what the Bible says because of this belief. There are many Christians that realize that the bible does support slavery and have simply denied that those scriptures are from God and were written by men. I think this is the best option for Christians.

Slavery, a Guide

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads