Let's hear it for SLAVERY . . . . . . . . or not

[ebia]

I guess that e.g. the slave owners acquired a meaningful level of individual self-determination on the back of those whom they denied this self-determination.

I'm guessing that some did and some did not. But that kind of sidesteps the point - by the standards we would like to set most people in the ancient world had sod-all freedom and a pretty crappy life. We shouldn't put ourselves in the mindset that thinks life in slavery woudl be more different to the life of non-privilaged non-slaves than was actually the case. Having much self determination is a pretty recent thing for all but the priviledged - and often much of a mirage for them. Not that there isn't a difference, nor that it doesn't matter, but lets not overstate the case.

Well, when the claim is that "slavery was necessary" I can only address the arguments made.

Of course.

Of course, the first and most important request before even starting to discuss this claim would be: Explain for what, for whom and in regards to which purposes slavery was necessary!

A very good question. I suppose I'm raising the question "was slavery necessary too boot-strap the process of civilisation?"

Yes, if we substract the ethical aspects from an ethical question...

I'm not trying to subtract it, but step aside from it for second to see if looking at the historical question might throw some light on the ethical one.

Source?

Seems self evident to me.

No, it would not be as we know it, but it would be different. We don´t know what it would be like.

If historians are right in supposing that civilisation depends on cities evolving to service big religious building projects then I'm not sure I can see how the process would boot-strap itself without slaves. Without some of the fruits of civilisation (writing, mathematics, concepts of contract etc) how would those big projects ever have got started other than by simply forcing people to work on them? I'm not an historian, so this is purely speculation, but I suspect that they simply would not have - that what happened (or, rather, did not happen) in Australia would happen more universally - a perfectly good hunter/gatherer culture would perpetuate indefinitely without making the leap to what (for lack of a better word) I've labelled civilisation.

That´s a pretty big "if", to begin with.

It is, but don't you think we ought to consider the extent to which we might have benefited from slavery? Not that we say then "oh, it was okay, then", but not to be too smug about ourselves.


BTW, bought any chocolate or cocoa products lately? Made sure none of it was sourced from Cote d'Ivory?

 

[Smidlee]

Psst! That isn't slavery. Do you need an explanation of what slavery has been over the centuries?

Though there is sex slavery rampant around the world today, it doesn't fit the model of what appears in The Bible, and would simply derail the thread.

I agree sex "slavery" may be derail the thread but I was referring to the good ole fashion slavery "slavery".

 

[JustMeSee]

I remember seeing in the world news where slavery was still going on in the mid-90's in America. The reporter ask how did they get by with this and they unashamedly replied we can buy any politician we want. This includes both donkeys and elephants. Now that a lot of businesses have moved to China this may not be the case anymore.

I agree sex "slavery" may be derail the thread but I was referring to the good ole fashion slavery "slavery".

Where in post #1 are you referring to 'the good ole fashion slavery "slavery";?

Are you bearing false witness?

 

[JustMeSee]

I find it ironic that the Jews escaped slavery in Egypt, and simply turned around and practiced it themselves. Even to the point of sanctioning it in their religious texts.

And then Christians piggybacking upon Judaism, justifying it well into the 19th century.

It may not say a lot about human nature, but it says a great deal about those two organized religions.

---
Playing the what-if game is pointless. Neither you or I know would know where the world would be today if Jews and Christians did not participate in and encourage slavery.

 

[Yahya Snow]

I see this discussion is going to run and run.

 

[quatona]

I'm guessing that some did and some did not.

I´m guessing that this is the very point of owning slaves.

But that kind of sidesteps the point - by the standards we would like to set most people in the ancient world had sod-all freedom and a pretty crappy life.

No doubt about that. After all, those were the times when slavery and such methods were still common practices.

We shouldn't put ourselves in the mindset that thinks life in slavery woudl be more different to the life of non-privilaged non-slaves than was actually the case.

I´m not putting myself in this mindset.

Having much self determination is a pretty recent thing for all but the priviledged - and often much of a mirage for them. Not that there isn't a difference, nor that it doesn't matter, but lets not overstate the case.

Well, self-determination was mentioned by one poster in one post of hundreds, so I think it´s not exactly overstated.
But if you wish, we can extend the topic from "slavery" to every form of establishing a society based on "privileged vs. non-privileged". I would be similarly critical of them in general as I am of slavery (as the epitome of such methods).

A very good question. I suppose I'm raising the question "was slavery necessary too boot-strap the process of civilisation?"

Thanks, now I have an idea what at least you are talking about when saying "necessary" in this context.
I don´t have any idea how such a hypothetical question can possibly be answered. Neither can I answer how civilisation would have developed hadn´t slavery stood at its cradle.


Thus, to me it appears you raise an unanswerable hypothetical question just to sidetrack from the actual question of this thread.

I'm not trying to subtract it, but step aside from it for second to see if looking at the historical question might throw some light on the ethical one.

Even if we could conclude (and, as I said, I don´t know how we could possibly conclude such) that we today have a good life because slavery opened the way to today´s society, I fail to see the relevance for the ethical question. I may be wrong, but I tend to think that the slave owners didn´t enslave people with the intention that people in the 21. century in Western Europe and other regions in the world could enjoy civilization as it would turn out in mind.
They were simply exploiting people for their own profits.

Seems self evident to me.

I don´t know how to break it to you without risking to become personal, ebia...maybe in your circles the statement "to ebia it seems self evident" is sufficient for people to accept something for a fact. Here...not so much.
I fail to see the self-evidence. Unless you simply use "out-compete" as a mere euphemism for all sorts of atrocities. Sure, if we want to buy into this terminology, genocide is also a way of "out-competing" another people.
If that´s not what you mean, I guess you would have to explain your claim a little more.

If historians are right in supposing that civilisation depends on cities evolving to service big religious building projects then I'm not sure I can see how the process would boot-strap itself without slaves. Without some of the fruits of civilisation (writing, mathematics, concepts of contract etc) how would those big projects ever have got started other than by simply forcing people to work on them?

Maybe I am naive, but I think paying (in money or naturals or whatever) would have been incentive enough to make people work for you. I´m not sure I see the need for forcing or owning them.

I'm not an historian, so this is purely speculation, but I suspect that they simply would not have - that what happened (or, rather, did not happen) in Australia would happen more universally - a perfectly good hunter/gatherer culture would perpetuate indefinitely without making the leap to what (for lack of a better word) I've labelled civilisation.

Well, as you say it´s all speculation. All we can say is: If things had been different, they would be different today.
I´m not sure I would be unhappier in in good hunter/gatherer culture than in civilisation as it is today.

It is, but don't you think we ought to consider the extent to which we might have benefited from slavery?

See my example of Nazi-Germany and how I might benefit from it.
Answer: No, I don´t think this is a useful approach. I´m not thankful to the Nazis for doing their part in preparing German "civilisation as it is today". It was not their intent, I didn´t ask them to, and I am not even sure I wouldn´t have liked the alternative better.

Not that we say then "oh, it was okay, then", but not to be too smug about ourselves.

I don´t know where and with whom you detected "smugness about ourselves".
I can understand pretty much every person´s motives for their actions quite fine (including murderers, slave owners, rapists, war heads and other criminals) - still I reserve the right to think they are wrong.

BTW, bought any chocolate or cocoa products lately? Made sure none of it was sourced from Cote d'Ivory?

I´m not sure I understand the relevance of this question.
Let´s simply assume that I am buying all my stuff without paying notice how it was produced and whether it comes from sweat shops or other exploitive business practices. Let´s simply say I knowingly and carelessly benefit from exploitation.
Does that make a case for exploitation being justified?
Does the fact that I am doing something wrong mean I have forfeited the right to label it wrong?
Since when is a "tu quoque" an accepted argument?

 

[Nooj]

Seems self evident to me.

So are you going to give a source and explanation for quatona and my question, or not?

 

[Maren]

That does not follow.

I have spent a huge amount of time today explaining to various people that various things are wrong. That in no way implies that any of the things I haven't talked about are less wrong than those that I have talked about. Or that the things left implicit by the story are less important than the things made explicit by injunctions.

(Of course, for a woman in those societies divorce could be just as bad as slavery - we do need to bear in mind that neither marriages nor divorce operated on the basis of equality of power we take for granted.)

I find your contention that divorce would be equally bad to slavery very questionable. And even if they are equally bad, it still remains that only divorce is called a sin whereas slavery is condoned.

 

[nolongerhome]

I think Verv is perhaps confusing "necessary for the development of history as it developed" and "necessary". At least I hope he is, otherwise we are witnessing a terrible apologetic for some of the worst oppression parts of humanity have imposed on others.

Would history have been very different had there been no slavery? Certainly, yes.

Does that mean slavery was necessary? No, because there is no reason why it would be necessary for history to develop as it did.

In the fist sense everything that has happened was necessary, because any change would lead to a different reality today. In the second sense nothing is necessary because history is seen as contingent (as it is).

 

[ebia]

I find it ironic that the Jews escaped slavery in Egypt, and simply turned around and practiced it themselves. Even to the point of sanctioning it in their religious texts.

And then Christians piggybacking upon Judaism, justifying it well into the 19th century.

It may not say a lot about human nature, but it says a great deal about those two organized religions.

It's exactly the kind of monumental mistake one expects if the Judeo/Christian story is true.

 

[ebia]

II´m not putting myself in this mindset

Well, self-determination was mentioned by one poster in one post of hundreds, so I think it´s not exactly overstated.
.

That's okay then.

But if you wish, we can extend the topic from "slavery" to every form of establishing a society based on "privileged vs. non-privileged". I would be similarly critical of them in general as I am of slavery (as the epitome of such methods).

You might have trouble finding many societies (ancient or modern) that have avoided it though.

Thanks, now I have an idea what at least you are talking about when saying "necessary" in this context.
I don´t have any idea how such a hypothetical question can possibly be answered. Neither can I answer how civilisation would have developed hadn´t slavery stood at its cradle.

Personally I think the question is at least worth considering for a moment - if no-one else want to explore it that's fine.

Thus, to me it appears you raise an unanswerable hypothetical question just to sidetrack from the actual question of this thread.

I'm sure the main track will keep going, and if no-one wants to follow my sidetrack that's fine. You're not forced to.

Even if we could conclude (and, as I said, I don´t know how we could possibly conclude such) that we today have a good life because slavery opened the way to today´s society, I fail to see the relevance for the ethical question. I may be wrong, but I tend to think that the slave owners didn´t enslave people with the intention that people in the 21. century in Western Europe and other regions in the world could enjoy civilization as it would turn out in mind.

Of course not, but if you've benefited from the "proceeds of crime", doesn't that bother you at all? If everything we take for granted only exists because of slavery I find that raises all sorts of questions. To harshly judge people in the past when one has benefitted from their actions - perhaps more than they did - seems at best a little hypocritical to me.

I don´t know how to break it to you without risking to become personal, ebia...maybe in your circles the statement "to ebia it seems self evident" is sufficient for people to accept something for a fact. Here...not so much.

Of course I don't expect you to accept something because I find it self-evident. I'm just surprised anyone would query it. If the argument rests on it and you find it unlikely then ignore the rest of the argument.


I fail to see the self-evidence. Unless you simply use "out-compete" as a mere euphemism for all sorts of atrocities. Sure, if we want to buy into this terminology, genocide is also a way of "out-competing" another people.
If that´s not what you mean, I guess you would have to explain your claim a little more.

Maybe I am naive, but I think paying (in money or naturals or whatever) would have been incentive enough to make people work for you. I´m not sure I see the need for forcing or owning them.

I'm suggesting that there may be a point early on where civilisation has not developed far enough to do that - has not developed the tools necessary to recruit and employ a large willing labour force but does have the tools to force one.

(Of course this has nothing to do with the biblical question - I'm talking much earlier in history than that).

I´m not sure I understand the relevance of this question.
Let´s simply assume that I am buying all my stuff without paying notice how it was produced and whether it comes from sweat shops or other exploitive business practices. Let´s simply say I knowingly and carelessly benefit from exploitation.
Does that make a case for exploitation being justified?

I have never been saying exploitation is justified.

 

[ebia]

So are you going to give a source and explanation for quatona and my question, or not?

See above.

 

[ebia]

I find your contention that divorce would be equally bad to slavery very questionable.

All I've said is that for some people it may have been just as bad.

And even if they are equally bad, it still remains that only divorce is called a sin whereas slavery is condoned.

I've maintained all through that slavery is not condoned, but it is addressed in the narrative (and therefore much more powerfully in the long run) rather than in an explicit prohibition.

What does the Kingdom of God look like:
Slaves set free says the Exodus story,
People released from bonds says Isaiah's poetry
Hierarchical relationships turned upside down says John 13, Philippians 2, Philemon,...
Remember what it was like to be a slave says Deuteronomy
In Christ there is no slave nor free says Galatians & Colossians

Scripture is vehemently anti-slavery, unless one blinds oneself to that.

 

[quatona]

You might have trouble finding many societies (ancient or modern) that have avoided it though.

So? I have trouble finding many societies that avoid wars, using conditioning as a means of raising kids and all sort of stuff that I think is wrong. I don´t know how "but X is a frequent phenomenon" is a response to "I disapprove of X" . If it didn´t exist, I would have no reason to even form an opinion about it.

Personally I think the question is at least worth considering for a moment - if no-one else want to explore it that's fine.

Well, if you fidn it worth considering and exploring it, then do it (and I might even be interested in your line of reasoning). But so far you just made some unsupported and unsupportable wild guesses. I could simply make guesses to the opposite and that would be that.

I'm sure the main track will keep going, and if no-one wants to follow my sidetrack that's fine. You're not forced to.

Well, you presented your side track as an objection to statements in the main track. Whereas I don´t think the outcome (even if it could be determined with certainty) would change my opinion about slavery.

Of course not, but if you've benefited from the "proceeds of crime", doesn't that bother you at all?

No. I couldn´t avoid benefitting from it. I was born when this had happened. I didn´t ask for it. I am not even sure it´s a benefit compared to the hypothetical alternative.

If everything we take for granted only exists because of slavery I find that raises all sorts of questions.

Which questions would that be, for example?

To harshly judge people in the past when one has benefitted from their actions - perhaps more than they did - seems at best a little hypocritical to me.

I have no interest in judging people - harshly or mildly. I am making a value statement about certain actions. And I don´t think that benefitting from historical events that happened before you were even born is not hypocritical at all.

Of course I don't expect you to accept something because I find it self-evident. I'm just surprised anyone would query it. If the argument rests on it and you find it unlikely then ignore the rest of the argument.

I think you would have to decide whether it is important to your reasoning. If it isn´t we can simply agree to ignore it. If it is, you would have to present something better than "it´s self-evident".

I'm suggesting that there may be a point early on where civilisation has not developed far enough to do that - has not developed the tools necessary to recruit and employ a large willing labour force but does have the tools to force one.

You can suggest a lot of things. I can suggest the opposite. Merely suggesting things doesn´t allow for a discussion. I think some sort of support for your suggestions would be a prerequisite to even start considering them.

I have never been saying exploitation is justified.

Well, since all I am arguing is that exploitation (and slavery as an extreme form of it) isn´t justified, I don´t know what we are discussing.
If your personal question is not meant to be some sort of objection or qualification to "exploitation is not justified", I still don´t know why you asked it.

 

[ebia]

I don´t know how "but X is a frequent phenomenon" is a response to "I disapprove of X" .

It's just an observation.

If it didn´t exist, I would have no reason to even form an opinion about it.

Of course, but there's a bit of distance between 'it exists' and 'it's near universal'.

Well, if you fidn it worth considering and exploring it, then do it (and I might even be interested in your line of reasoning).

It's just thinking aloud.

Well, you presented your side track as an objection to statements in the main track

If that's how it came across I apologise. That wasn't the intention.

No. I couldn´t avoid benefitting from it. I was born when this had happened. I didn´t ask for it. I am not even sure it´s a benefit compared to the hypothetical alternative.

Okay. I don't entirely share that position.

I think you would have to decide whether it is important to your reasoning. If it isn´t we can simply agree to ignore it. If it is, you would have to present something better than "it´s self-evident".

This isn't a fully worked out argument or aimed at any particular conclusion, just thinking aloud to see where it goes, if anywhere. Not very far in this context at least, by the look of it, but thanks for your time and input.

 

[quatona]

Of course, but there's a bit of distance between 'it exists' and 'it's near universal'.

Sure there is a distance. I don´t see how this distance is relevant for the topic, though.
Playing the lottery is near universal. I think it´s stupid and I disapprove of the underlying philosophy of distributing the wealth of the masses to a few individuals.

It's just thinking aloud.



If that's how it came across I apologise. That wasn't the intention.


Okay. I don't entirely share that position.


This isn't a fully worked out argument or aimed at any particular conclusion, just thinking aloud to see where it goes, if anywhere. Not very far in this context at least, by the look of it, but thanks for your time and input.

You´re welcome. Anticipating your permission, I will abstain from putting any more time and effort in it for the time being, but might happily participate once something of substance has been added to the purposeless wild guessings.

 

[annrobert]

Jesus said over and over ,ye have heard it said of old time.....but I say unto you
Showing He is teaching them a better way despite what was permitted before.
Jesus now expects people to live the better way He is teaching them.
To show how much He expects these new teaching to be followed ,He says why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things that I say.


Matheew ch 5


20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect

This new way of love clearly shows what Jesus out Mighty God believes in,and how He expects us to treat every one.


Luke 14
11For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

12Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.
13But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: 14And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

Luke 10
29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Mathew 25

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


All these Words of Jesus leave no room for maltreatment of anyone in anyway.
More so than just not being allowed to harm are the commands to actively love and minister to ALL wounded and to meat the needs of all and make your feasts for the poor etc.Every single person must be treated with the utmost love.


14If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

Mark 10:44
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

Mark 9
33And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
34But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
35And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
36And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 37Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

 

[Zeena]

1 Corinthians 7:21
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

Galatians 5:13
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another in love.

1 Peter 2:16
Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.

 

[Bro_Sam]

So just how does the good Christian regard slavery?

The good Christian understands scripture well enough to understand the difference between slavery in the Bible and the slavery that occured in North America from the 17th - 19th centuries.

The Bible certainly approves of it. In fact, it gives directions in the proper ownership of slaves, and in turn slaves are given directions on how to obey their owners.

Personally, I find slavery to be highly immoral, and I suspect most others do too. But what then is the Christian to do with the message the Bible sends: one that not only doesn't condemn the practice but ostensibly condones it.

What do you find objectionable about two men entering into such a contract?

 

[nolongerhome]

The Bible certainly approves of it. In fact, it gives directions in the proper ownership of slaves, and in turn slaves are given directions on how to obey their owners.

What do you find objectionable about two men entering into such a contract?

Are the slaves that the Bible talks about freely entering into labour contracts?