Jesus, slavery and multiple choice

[ranunculus]

I was interested in finding out what christians think of ex-christians and I found this video: ‪Generation EX Christian‬‏ - YouTube

The author of 'generation ex-christian' is interviewed. It's not really interesting save for this exchange:

4:32 - 4:50
"They had a lot of misperceptions about what christianity really was, there was some bizarre misperceptions. I remember one, I felt bad interrupting her, but one 25-year-old women told me she couldn't be a christian since Jesus supported slavery. And I thought, where's that in the bible? Maybe she was thinking of Paul."

I'm guessing he means the 'slaves, obey your masters' verse in Ephesians. Now, the old testament is a lot more enthusiastic about slavery than the new testament. They actually tell you who you can enslave and how much to pay for them. Jesus didn't do any of that. But what Jesus also didn't do was come out and say "It's morally wrong to own another human being". Slavery is never denounced in the new testament. It clearly says:

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. Ephesians 6:5-9 New International Version (NIV)

Furthermore Jesus said that the OT laws will not be changed until all has come to pass.

There might be some who would argue that 'love your neighbor as yourself' is a verse against slavery. To me this seems like anachronistic spin. And some might say 'slavery wasn't as bad back then'. But even if that were true, it doesn't change that fact that owning another human being is immoral. period.

It seems to me the bible is a big book of multiple choice. Find something you like and you'll find a verse to support it, find something you don't like and you'll find a verse against it. We're now living in a world where, for the first time in recorded history, slavery is widely abolished. So now theists spin verses to go along with this change in ethics.

So is it a misconception that Jesus supported slavery? Yes, if you're a christian born in the last 150 years. No, if you're a christian born in the 1800 years before that.

 

[AlexBP]

I think, with all due respect, that you've got it backwards. Slavery is rampant today. If you live in the USA (or any other wealthy country) and get your food, clothing, and other basics from mainstream suppliers, then much of what you eat and wear and so forth is made at least partially by slaves. As examples, just read this article about slavery on chocolate farms in Africa or this one about slavery in the clothing industry. Slavery is so profitable for some companies that they've hired lobbyists to repeatedly shut down efforts to eliminate slavery worldwide.

In looking at the fact that Jesus didn't specifically condemn slavery, I'm not sure why anyone would expect Him to. His moral teachings were all about laying foundations applicable at all times, not about addressing specifics. He never condemned running red lights either. A better way to see the issue is to note that prior to Jesus, all civilizations were slave civilizations. As soon as a society reached the level where property could exist, humans were among the property that existed, and this was true in Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, China, and the civilizations of sub-Saharan Africa and meso-America. Yet shortly after Catholic Europe became the first fully Christian civilization, it was also the first non-slave civilization. (Prisoners of war from conflicts with the Islamic world were sometimes treated as slaves, but that was a minor phenomenon.) It certainly is not true that Christians prior to 1800 believed that Jesus supported slavery, as we can see from Pope Paul III's bull Sublimus Dei, on that topic:

To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.
The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.
The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.
We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.
[Dated: May 29, 1537]
​

 

[Eudaimonist]

In looking at the fact that Jesus didn't specifically condemn slavery, I'm not sure why anyone would expect Him to.

Are you serious?

His moral teachings were all about laying foundations applicable at all times, not about addressing specifics. He never condemned running red lights either.

Slavery is not a "specific". It's a basic evil that has existed for thousands of years... and even today, as you've correctly pointed out. Slavery is a timeless moral issue. You'd think that he could at least have suggested that while it couldn't be abolished in his day, this was an ideal for political reformers to work towards.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ranunculus]

I don't think I have it backwards. I said slavery is widely abolished, I didn't say it vanished, only that it is widely considered immoral now and, in oh so many places, illegal.

I think, with all due respect, that you've got it backwards. Slavery is rampant today. If you live in the USA (or any other wealthy country) and get your food, clothing, and other basics from mainstream suppliers, then much of what you eat and wear and so forth is made at least partially by slaves. As examples, just read this article about slavery on chocolate farms in Africa or this one about slavery in the clothing industry. Slavery is so profitable for some companies that they've hired lobbyists to repeatedly shut down efforts to eliminate slavery worldwide.

My argument is that the NT condones slavery. According to the bible, God was never shy about voicing his opinion on what he thought was bad. Not once did he speak out against the owning of a human life by another human. You reply with 'well there's still slavery today'. How does that address the issue?
Of course there are no passages in the bible addressing running red lights because those have only been invented in the last 100 years.

In looking at the fact that Jesus didn't specifically condemn slavery, I'm not sure why anyone would expect Him to. His moral teachings were all about laying foundations applicable at all times, not about addressing specifics. He never condemned running red lights either. A better way to see the issue is to note that prior to Jesus, all civilizations were slave civilizations. As soon as a society reached the level where property could exist, humans were among the property that existed, and this was true in Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, China, and the civilizations of sub-Saharan Africa and meso-America. Yet shortly after Catholic Europe became the first fully Christian civilization, it was also the first non-slave civilization. (Prisoners of war from conflicts with the Islamic world were sometimes treated as slaves, but that was a minor phenomenon.)

I would argue that after Jesus, slave trade only continued to expand. I only need to mention the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and later the Americans, all nations with very organized slave trade. All 'christian' nations who were responsible for the 'African Holocaust or Holocaust of Enslavement'.

It certainly is not true that Christians prior to 1800 believed that Jesus supported slavery, as we can see from Pope Paul III's bull Sublimus Dei, on that topic:

To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.
The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.
The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.
We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.
[Dated: May 29, 1537]
​

That's really nice. Too bad it didn't help the native Americans. And does nothing to address the issue. He is indeed speaking out against enslaving the newly discovered 'Indians'. But he's not referencing Jesus. He's saying the heathen Indians should be converted to Christianity.

 

[david_x]

Furthermore Jesus said that the OT laws will not be changed until all has come to pass.

People really need to start reading that chapter before they quote it.

The point is that the laws are becoming more than what they were before. i.e. Thou shalt not murder is really thou shalt not contemplate murder.

The very possible conclusion of this is that masters respecting their slaves is really letting their slaves go.

That being said this slavery, in the bible, is not the same as the slavery that happens today(sex slavery) nor what the southern Americans were doing a few years ago(life in slavery). It was more akin to welfare.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That being said this slavery, in the bible, is not the same as the slavery that happens today(sex slavery) nor what the southern Americans were doing a few years ago(life in slavery). It was more akin to welfare.

Roman slavery shouldn't be whitewashed.

While it was a somewhat less egregious form of slavery than slavery in America, it was still slavery. While slaves did have some limited protections under the law, it was not unusual for slaves to be beaten by their masters. If a runaway slave was caught, she or he would likely be brutally punished and branded on the forehead with a letter F for fugitivus. It wasn't for trivial reasons that there were a few slave revolts.

Slavery was not "akin to welfare". More like "akin to serfdom".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ranunculus]

People really need to start reading that chapter before they quote it.

The point is that the laws are becoming more than what they were before. i.e. Thou shalt not murder is really thou shalt not contemplate murder.

The very possible conclusion of this is that masters respecting their slaves is really letting their slaves go.

It seems to me that you want the bible to line up with your particular morality. So you're spinning verses until it does. If the bible instructs slave owners to let their slaves go free, why did it take 2000 years for that to actually happen? why did it take until the age of enlightenment for secular values of humanism to create a climate fertile enough for an abolitionist movement?
Why did Christians have to fight other Christians to end slavery if , according to you, the bible specifically instructs that slave owners let their slaves go free?

That being said this slavery, in the bible, is not the same as the slavery that happens today(sex slavery) nor what the southern Americans were doing a few years ago(life in slavery). It was more akin to welfare.

Kinda saw this one coming, which is why I addressed it in the OP. Look, even if that were true, which I don't believe it is, it doesn't change that fact that owning another human being as property is immoral.

'oh you're so naive, you're thinking of the bad slavery in the south and all that but they treated slaves very differently in those days'

yeah they beat them with rods, until they died.

I can point out a passage where it says you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two (what does that matter btw?). Because if it takes them more than 2 days to die, you're not in trouble.
But that's not even the point. The point is it advocates owning another human being as property. What does it matter how well you treat them?
If I promise to treat you nicely, will you become my slave, work for me, give me power of attorney, let me make every decision for you? Can I pass you on to my children as property?

 

[lucaspa]

There might be some who would argue that 'love your neighbor as yourself' is a verse against slavery. To me this seems like anachronistic spin. And some might say 'slavery wasn't as bad back then'. But even if that were true, it doesn't change that fact that owning another human being is immoral. period.

You need to be careful about "owning another human being is immoral, period". It's invalid to hold previous generations liable for the ethics of later generations. After all, the previous generation isn't around to defend themselves or their culture.

Yes, slavery was viewed as "acceptable" then. I'm not sure you can say it was viewed as "moral", but acceptable. As an example, I am not sure war is viewed as "moral", but we have decided there are some situations where it is acceptable.

It seems to me the bible is a big book of multiple choice. Find something you like and you'll find a verse to support it, find something you don't like and you'll find a verse against it. We're now living in a world where, for the first time in recorded history, slavery is widely abolished. So now theists spin verses to go along with this change in ethics.

Some theists. Many acknowledge the history. Many denominations don't go in for "proof" verses. Instead, they try and take a holistic approach to scripture. What, in general, does scripture say. The denomination I belong to -- United Methodists -- does this. Here is a prime example of UMC reasoning about scripture:
Why Do United Methodists Ordain Women When the Bible Specifically Prohibits it?

Now, remember that "love your neighbor" is part of the Great Commandment. When Jesus was asked about the Law, he answered that all the Law could be summarized by 2 things: love God and love your neighbor. In OT and NT times, it can be argued that people did not realize the full implications of "love your neighbor" and that it really does mandate against slavery.

So is it a misconception that Jesus supported slavery? Yes, if you're a christian born in the last 150 years. No, if you're a christian born in the 1800 years before that.

Sorry, but Jesus never supported slavery. There is no quote from Jesus that I am aware of that addresses the issue. In that sense your video is correct. As you pointed out, Paul accepts slavery. The OT also accepts slavery. But Jesus never commented on it.

 

[lucaspa]

That being said this slavery, in the bible, is not the same as the slavery that happens today(sex slavery) nor what the southern Americans were doing a few years ago(life in slavery). It was more akin to welfare.

Not at all. The only difference is that slavery wasn't based on race. It was based more on being on the losing side of a war.

But other than that, no, for women it was sex slavery (sometimes for young boys, too). The master could have sex with the slave whenever he/she pleased and require the slave to have sex with anyone he/she designated. What's more, slavery was for life, and then the life of the children. There really was no way out. You really think the revolt led by Spartacus was to get out of being on welfare? Remember the punishment for that revolt, too.

The welfare was reserved for Roman citizens. They got the free bread and free admission to the Coliseum.

 

[AlexBP]

I don't think I have it backwards. I said slavery is widely abolished, I didn't say it vanished, only that it is widely considered immoral now and, in oh so many places, illegal.

It's illegal for an American or European to own a slave inside the USA or Europe today, but it's perfectly legal for a corporation to benefit from slave labor elsewhere. Much that's on sale in your local mall or supermarket involved slave labor in its production. The point being that it's hard to take seriously somebody who complains about the stance of the Bible's authors towards slavery while turning a blind eye to present-day slavery.

My argument is that the NT condones slavery. According to the bible, God was never shy about voicing his opinion on what he thought was bad. Not once did he speak out against the owning of a human life by another human. You reply with 'well there's still slavery today'. How does that address the issue?

Regarding the claim that the NT "condones slavery", you claimed to quote Ephesians 6:5-9. However, you actually only quoted Ephesians 6:5-8, and left out verse 9. Let's repeat the passage with the missing verse included:

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. 9 Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

​

Now I could check the history books, but I don't think Romans slaveholders were typically told to treat slaves the same way that slaves treated them, to serve slaves, and to "forbear threatening". Viewed in that light, Paul is obviously condoning something very different from the way that slavery was practiced then. It makes no sense to complain that Paul didn't demand the abolition of slavery when he had no legal authority but what he could do was to speak out for the dignity of all human beings, and he did.

The Old Testament also contains anti-slavery statements. For just one example, in Isaiah 65:21-25, the prophet says that when the messianic age arrives and God's promises are fulfilled, nobody will be forced to work for the benefit of anyone else, but instead everyone will do work for his own benefit. As Jesus claimed to be fulfilling the messianic prophecies, he was also fulfilling this one.
​

That's really nice. Too bad it didn't help the native Americans.

Well yes, it is too bad, but why didn't it help? Because the Pope and the Church heirarchy had no authority over the Spanish Dons who were setting themselves up as rulers in the Americas.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you serious?



Slavery is not a "specific". It's a basic evil that has existed for thousands of years... and even today, as you've correctly pointed out. Slavery is a timeless moral issue. You'd think that he could at least have suggested that while it couldn't be abolished in his day, this was an ideal for political reformers to work towards.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Care to describe what is the content of a slavery relationship?

Until you get that clear and agreed upon, miscommunication will definitely exist.

I think an ideal slavery system is a beautiful and good relationship in human society. It is definitely not an evil system.

 

[david_x]

Roman slavery shouldn't be whitewashed.

While it was a somewhat less egregious form of slavery than slavery in America, it was still slavery. While slaves did have some limited protections under the law, it was not unusual for slaves to be beaten by their masters. If a runaway slave was caught, she or he would likely be brutally punished and branded on the forehead with a letter F for fugitivus. It wasn't for trivial reasons that there were a few slave revolts.

Slavery was not "akin to welfare". More like "akin to serfdom".


eudaimonia,

Mark

And serfdom was akin to welfare, it is simply the evolution/inventive process of morality.

 

[Nanopants]

It seems to me the bible is a big book of multiple choice. Find something you like and you'll find a verse to support it, find something you don't like and you'll find a verse against it. We're now living in a world where, for the first time in recorded history, slavery is widely abolished. So now theists spin verses to go along with this change in ethics.

No offense but it sounds as if you're trying to cram the bible into a neat little package and you're upset because it just doesn't seem to fit.

The bible is a collection of very old texts written by many different authors over a very long period of time. If the religious program isn't working it's probably because it was never was one to begin with, and why should you expect anything different? Because some fundamentalists shouted things at you?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Care to describe what is the content of a slavery relationship?

Treating a person as one's own property. A notable feature of slavery is that the slave is not free to seek another employer, to be self-employed, or to become an employer. A slave is not regarded as an end-in-himself, but merely as a means to the ends of the slaveholder. A slave is not regarding as having a right to personal liberty, which is the right to self-determination with and among other free individuals, but must accept a master instead.

I think an ideal slavery system is a beautiful and good relationship in human society. It is definitely not an evil system.

I might lose my lunch, but what is an "ideal slavery system", and what makes it "ideal"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

And serfdom was akin to welfare, it is simply the evolution/inventive process of morality.

It is no such thing. And morality may evolve, but that doesn't mean that slavery wasn't an evil when it was regarded as morally acceptable. Just because Big Brother defines himself as good, doesn't mean that Big Brother is good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[david_x]

It is no such thing. And morality may evolve, but that doesn't mean that slavery wasn't an evil when it was regarded as morally acceptable. Just because Big Brother defines himself as good, doesn't mean that Big Brother is good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't disagree, but I do not hold the people of that time to our standards either.

 

[ranunculus]

You need to be careful about "owning another human being is immoral, period". It's invalid to hold previous generations liable for the ethics of later generations. After all, the previous generation isn't around to defend themselves or their culture.

Yes, slavery was viewed as "acceptable" then. I'm not sure you can say it was viewed as "moral", but acceptable. As an example, I am not sure war is viewed as "moral", but we have decided there are some situations where it is acceptable.

Is it invalid to hold previous generations liable for the ethics of later generations? I don't think it is. Previous generations had rampant sexism/racism/xenophobia. I can say those aspects are immoral. When for example in 100 years time eating animals will be illegal, that generation can say, back when people still killed animals for meat, those were immoral times. Because what moral standard can you use to judge other than your own?

Some theists. Many acknowledge the history. Many denominations don't go in for "proof" verses. Instead, they try and take a holistic approach to scripture. What, in general, does scripture say. The denomination I belong to -- United Methodists -- does this. Here is a prime example of UMC reasoning about scripture:
Why Do United Methodists Ordain Women When the Bible Specifically Prohibits it?

Now, remember that "love your neighbor" is part of the Great Commandment. When Jesus was asked about the Law, he answered that all the Law could be summarized by 2 things: love God and love your neighbor. In OT and NT times, it can be argued that people did not realize the full implications of "love your neighbor" and that it really does mandate against slavery.

So Jesus gave a precise guideline against slavery except people didn't understand that it was about slavery so it went unheeded for 2000 years. THEN WHAT GOOD WAS IT?
It's like telling me the bible has blueprints for microchips in it. But what good is it if nobody figured it out until IBM came along?

Sorry, but Jesus never supported slavery. There is no quote from Jesus that I am aware of that addresses the issue. In that sense your video is correct. As you pointed out, Paul accepts slavery. The OT also accepts slavery. But Jesus never commented on it.

So if Jesus never comments on it, and he said the OT laws shall be respected (with exception of the sacrificial laws). That can only mean he wasn't against it, Which is why you can interpret it the way you want to. If you're against slavery, you can say oh well Jesus never spoke in defense of it. And if you're for slavery, you can say well Jesus never spoke against it.

 

[ranunculus]

It's illegal for an American or European to own a slave inside the USA or Europe today, but it's perfectly legal for a corporation to benefit from slave labor elsewhere. Much that's on sale in your local mall or supermarket involved slave labor in its production. The point being that it's hard to take seriously somebody who complains about the stance of the Bible's authors towards slavery while turning a blind eye to present-day slavery.

Yea You got me, I've own sweatshops all over asia. No seriously I don't turn a blind eye to present day slavery. Where did I do that? mmm?

Regarding the claim that the NT "condones slavery", you claimed to quote Ephesians 6:5-9. However, you actually only quoted Ephesians 6:5-8, and left out verse 9. Let's repeat the passage with the missing verse included:

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. 9 Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

​

Now I could check the history books, but I don't think Romans slaveholders were typically told to treat slaves the same way that slaves treated them, to serve slaves, and to "forbear threatening". Viewed in that light, Paul is obviously condoning something very different from the way that slavery was practiced then. It makes no sense to complain that Paul didn't demand the abolition of slavery when he had no legal authority but what he could do was to speak out for the dignity of all human beings, and he did.​

You're right I did cut that one off but not intentionally. And I would contend that including that last verse doesn't change a thing because, as I said before, no matter how well you treat someone, it doesn't make it moral to enslave them.

​

 

[ranunculus]

No offense but it sounds as if you're trying to cram the bible into a neat little package and you're upset because it just doesn't seem to fit.

The bible is a collection of very old texts written by many different authors over a very long period of time. If the religious program isn't working it's probably because it was never was one to begin with, and why should you expect anything different? Because some fundamentalists shouted things at you?

I'm very much aware that the bible is a collection of books by multiple authors but that collection of very old texts is also claimed to be divinely inspired. I'd expect a divinely inspired document to come up with a little more than just an exercise in multiple choice. I guess my expectations are too high.

 

[juvenissun]

Treating a person as one's own property. A notable feature of slavery is that the slave is not free to seek another employer, to be self-employed, or to become an employer. A slave is not regarded as an end-in-himself, but merely as a means to the ends of the slaveholder. A slave is not regarding as having a right to personal liberty, which is the right to self-determination with and among other free individuals, but must accept a master instead.

I might lose my lunch, but what is an "ideal slavery system", and what makes it "ideal"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Don't be excited. I think you only said half of the slavery relationship. What should be "the right way" for a master to treat his slaves?

There are numerous examples illustrated in the Scripture. For example Mt. 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Here the "servant" is actually a "slave".

"ringggg..."