Should the world have kept slavery? Why or why not?

[RaymondG]

The great commandment is that we love others as ourselves. Would you want to be a slave against your own will? if not, then I think you should not keep anyone slave against his free will.

What if the OP desire to be a slave? Would you say it would be wrong for him to pursue that goal?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Before everybody rages at me all at once, let me explain. I'm talking about keeping slavery as it existed before the Americans enslaved the African Americans and treated them like cattle ...etc.

I am NOT saying we should have kept enslaving the blacks and I think that the Civil war was a push in the right direction and exposed the awful way in which Americans used to enslave the blacks. But, merely that we should have kept slavery as it existed since the beginning of time from before that. We shouldn't have abolished slavery just the way people treated their slaves and people are varying color at the time.

Technically slavery as it existed in Biblical times existed as the rich or middle class providing housing and food to the poor class was not only biblical but it was the way society ran for several thousands of years. They also used to treat their slaves with kindness and respect and treated them like one of their own and definitely not like the way Americans used to treat the African Americans. Once America came around slavery took a turn for the worse and I don't blame Lincoln one bit for starting the civil war. I'm not saying change the world and bring back slaves I'm just asking "should we have kept the slaves?"

I mean you could argue that slavery is out of date now and there isn't much for slaves to do anymore. But there is PLENTY that a slave could do for their master including things that a butler or a maid can do for us. And we don't have to pay like $200,000 a year for those services. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Slavery is wrong.
Promoting, defending, advocating, or excusing the enslavement of anybody based on race is not only deeply offensive, tone-deaf, and gross... Its racist.

Period.
End of discussion.

 

[Resha Caner]

I can only think that someone has sold you a 'bill of goods' about the nature of slavery in Biblical times!

It's a sad, yet not unexpected result of people trying to justify slavery in ancient Israel (and the associated Bible verses) as "not really that bad". I think we have to admit the Bible has some difficult passages resulting from God's interaction with sinful people (Matthew 19:8).

 

[Neogaia777]

Before everybody rages at me all at once, let me explain. I'm talking about keeping slavery as it existed before the Americans enslaved the African Americans and treated them like cattle ...etc.

I am NOT saying we should have kept enslaving the blacks and I think that the Civil war was a push in the right direction and exposed the awful way in which Americans used to enslave the blacks. But, merely that we should have kept slavery as it existed since the beginning of time from before that. We shouldn't have abolished slavery just the way people treated their slaves and people are varying color at the time.

Technically slavery as it existed in Biblical times existed as the rich or middle class providing housing and food to the poor class was not only biblical but it was the way society ran for several thousands of years. They also used to treat their slaves with kindness and respect and treated them like one of their own and definitely not like the way Americans used to treat the African Americans. Once America came around slavery took a turn for the worse and I don't blame Lincoln one bit for starting the civil war. I'm not saying change the world and bring back slaves I'm just asking "should we have kept the slaves?"

I mean you could argue that slavery is out of date now and there isn't much for slaves to do anymore. But there is PLENTY that a slave could do for their master including things that a butler or a maid can do for us. And we don't have to pay like $200,000 a year for those services. Do you agree? Why or why not?

I think I get what your trying to say, but your probably wrong about the past though, but, that being said, even if we "modified" it for today's age and times, etc, no matter how kindly and respectfully a "slave" is treated, they are never ever truly "free" ever, and part of the American dream was for everyone to be free...

If we could find a way around that maybe, but, good luck, and I do agree with you however, that it probably would be much cheaper than the current system that is bankrupting us, and is not taking care of everybody properly anymore either, in part due to that, etc, but, a slave is never free, no matter what, or how you would choose to modify it, or update it for today's age and times, etc...

The closest thing would be willing servants, who would be clothed, housed, well fed, treated with great kindness and respect, have proper medical care, security in being taken care of for life, and always have this treatment no matter what happened to or with them, treatment that would have to go even "way beyond basic human rights", etc, and could choose to be such and opt out at any time, switch masters at any time, etc, but I still don't think that ever would or could ever work either...

They would have to free in many ways if you did, and that's basically the system we have now, etc... Were, a lot of us, still slaves in some or many ways, but also very free in a lot of ways or a great deal of ways too...

Some would rather be homeless and on the street rather than be well taken care of but have to a servant or a slave... And I don't blame them either, freedom is a very precious and valuable thing, and came at a high cost for, well, everyone, both in times past and still does sometimes today, but it is a high cost that a lot of people consider "very well worth it", and would rather be, let's just say, "a poor but free person, than a rich (or much richer in a lot of ways) but not free person", is the only way I know how to put it...

God Bless!

 

[Light of the East]

Slavery is wrong.
Promoting, defending, advocating, or excusing the enslavement of anybody based on race is not only deeply offensive, tone-deaf, and gross... Its racist.

Period.
End of discussion.

So the fact that God permitted indentured slavery doesn't matter to you?

Boy, talk about gittin' yer knickers in a knot!!!!

 

[Light of the East]

So for all those people whose hair is on fire right now regarding the OP -

Roman slavery was not the same as slavery in Israel. Roman slavery was bestial and represented well the inappropriate behavior with animals ideas of "god" that the pagan Romans had. It was involuntary, that is, slaves were often from captured people in war, they were mistreated, raped, and sometimes even killed with impunity.

God had specific rules for the treatment of slaves, beginning with the fact that they were to be treated with dignity. Not that all Jews did this, but that was the rules. And indentured slavery was voluntary, a manner in which a man could keep his family together and pay off his indebtedness.

So which is better, having homeless people on the streets with no work and in poverty, or offering them a voluntary servitude which would be free, that is, they could choose to walk away from it at any time.

And St. Paul didn't condemn slavery either. He told the masters and the slaves to love one another as fellow believers.

Let's see how many people I annoy with that posting.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

So the fact that God permitted indentured slavery doesn't matter to you?

Boy, talk about gittin' yer knickers in a knot!!!!

Me thinks you need to pick up a copy of the New Testament.

 

[salt-n-light]

Before everybody rages at me all at once, let me explain. I'm talking about keeping slavery as it existed before the Americans enslaved the African Americans and treated them like cattle ...etc.

I am NOT saying we should have kept enslaving the blacks and I think that the Civil war was a push in the right direction and exposed the awful way in which Americans used to enslave the blacks. But, merely that we should have kept slavery as it existed since the beginning of time from before that. We shouldn't have abolished slavery just the way people treated their slaves and people are varying color at the time.

Technically slavery as it existed in Biblical times existed as the rich or middle class providing housing and food to the poor class was not only biblical but it was the way society ran for several thousands of years. They also used to treat their slaves with kindness and respect and treated them like one of their own and definitely not like the way Americans used to treat the African Americans. Once America came around slavery took a turn for the worse and I don't blame Lincoln one bit for starting the civil war. I'm not saying change the world and bring back slaves I'm just asking "should we have kept the slaves?"

I mean you could argue that slavery is out of date now and there isn't much for slaves to do anymore. But there is PLENTY that a slave could do for their master including things that a butler or a maid can do for us. And we don't have to pay like $200,000 a year for those services. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Slavery is still going around, what are you talking about?

 

[mothcorrupteth]

This is like when people who are ignorant of real history complain about how backwards serfdom was. Serfdom basically legally protected you from getting fired and evicted, and assured you physical security that wasn't just some cop on the city payroll, but the lord of your manor who needed you alive and intact to work his own fields. When the 19th-century Left got rid of serfdom in Russia, what replaced it? Their own utilitarian system of at-will employment. (Socialists try to blame that on conservatives, when they should be looking within their own ranks at John Stuart Mill and other classical liberals.) People hear the word serf and just assume it was all bad because it got to be unsustainable in modern times and the serfs were the ones who ended up bearing the cost. Well, serfdom was good enough that for most of history we weren't constantly plagued with Spartacan uprisings among serfs. It was good enough that poor people in the West didn't have to wait hundreds of years for Otto von Bismarck to come along and invent pensions and other social benefits while the Catholic Church ponderously hashed out the philosophy of distributism.

It's the same with slavery. People hear the word and they have kneejerk reactions. They're not aware that the word in the KJV is an overly literal translation of the Greek σκλάβος, and they're not aware that a σκλάβος wasn't quite the same thing as an African-American slave from 1859. Yeah, slavery has been pretty crappy for most of history. But to be a slave meant different things at different points at history to different groups of people, and at some of those points it was a halfway decent way of dealing with people who had accrued debts they couldn't pay. Even the times when it sucked (and to be sure, it did suck in the American South), your master had incentives not to mistreat you too bad, or else you wouldn't be able to work for him. Yes, Hebrew slavery sometimes sucked, too, as we discover in the Prophets. But that does not negate the OP's argument that as an ideal outlined in the Mosaic law, slavery wasn't so bad.

We actually see the principle of protecting your "slave" at work in Hebrew "slavery." Everyone likes to bring up the verse about "when you beat your slave..." Well, accuracy aside of the translation of slave, what such provocateurs usually fail to mention is that in the surrounding verses we're told that (a) if you beat your slave to death, you would be punished (Ex. 21:20); and that beating anyone to death on purpose was a capital offense (v12); (b) if you beat a free man but not to death, your only punishment was to pay for his treatment and his lost time (v19); so when Moses states "he is his property" respecting the same scenario with a slave, the actual implication is that he doesn't have to pay the fee usually due to a free man because he's effectively shooting himself in the foot--that slave's time is already owed to him; (c) aside from which, if you beat your slave to the point of permanent physical damage, he went free (Ex. 21:26-7)--how does that compute with the conclusion the provocateurs want us to draw (i.e., that v21 actually means you were free to treat a slave like common chattel).

But as with so many other things in life, no one cares about the nuanced truth. People only care about catchy soundbites that yank at the emotions. You're arguing for ideas that involve the word slavery? You must be a Neo-Confederate!

EDIT: I realized after the fact that part of this can be confusing. The word slave doesn't actually occur very much in KJV, so what am I talking about? Well, in one of the two places it does occur (Jer. 2:14), it is used to translate a Hebrew word that the Septuagint treats as synonymous to δούλος, which is the Koine term for a bondservant or a domestic servant. Σκλάβος doesn't actually occur in the Septuagint or the New Testament, because it is a medieval term that comes from the fact that most Byzantine slaves were Slavs (particularly Bulgarians) who were conquered in battle. But effectively, by treating the words servant (δούλος) and slave (which comes from σκλάβος) as equal in Jer. 2:14, the KJV confuses two different types of servitude from two different eras of history.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Before everybody rages at me all at once, let me explain. I'm talking about keeping slavery as it existed before the Americans enslaved the African Americans and treated them like cattle ...etc.

I am NOT saying we should have kept enslaving the blacks and I think that the Civil war was a push in the right direction and exposed the awful way in which Americans used to enslave the blacks. But, merely that we should have kept slavery as it existed since the beginning of time from before that. We shouldn't have abolished slavery just the way people treated their slaves and people are varying color at the time.

Technically slavery as it existed in Biblical times existed as the rich or middle class providing housing and food to the poor class was not only biblical but it was the way society ran for several thousands of years. They also used to treat their slaves with kindness and respect and treated them like one of their own and definitely not like the way Americans used to treat the African Americans. Once America came around slavery took a turn for the worse and I don't blame Lincoln one bit for starting the civil war. I'm not saying change the world and bring back slaves I'm just asking "should we have kept the slaves?"

I mean you could argue that slavery is out of date now and there isn't much for slaves to do anymore. But there is PLENTY that a slave could do for their master including things that a butler or a maid can do for us. And we don't have to pay like $200,000 a year for those services. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Slavery was different in Israel's day. It was only sort term, 7 years. There were conditions that seem odd in our day but God knows what he is doing. In theory, the slave was doing unpaid labour to pay off his debts. The owner was required to take care of all the material needs of the slave. That's where the "bondslave" principle comes in. The slave could choose to become a permanent slave. That could have been a better option than going back to abject poverty. The year of Jubilee was supposed to be a reset where everything was restored to the original owners. There is no record of this happening in Israel's history, one reason why they suffered God's judgement so severely.

In the New Testament, slaves were encouraged to seek freedom if possible and to obey their masters if not. In cultures other than Israel, slavery was for life and with few restrictions on how slaves were treated. In the US, Jonathon Whitfield, a famous evangelist, encouraged slavery to fund his ministry. However, he roundly rebuked slave owners for treating their slaves badly. Lord Jesus came to set captives free. Anyone not born again is a slave to sin, self, Satan and the world. Modern day slavery exists and is a terrible oppression.

If slaves were treated humanely, just maybe there is a case. Since the world elites treat anyone but their peers with contempt, I would not expect anything better for modern slaves. No, I don't think ending slavery in the US was a bad idea. The British ended slavery yet at one time ruled much of the world.

 

[danielmears]

Before everybody rages at me all at once, let me explain. I'm talking about keeping slavery as it existed before the Americans enslaved the African Americans and treated them like cattle ...etc.

I am NOT saying we should have kept enslaving the blacks and I think that the Civil war was a push in the right direction and exposed the awful way in which Americans used to enslave the blacks. But, merely that we should have kept slavery as it existed since the beginning of time from before that. We shouldn't have abolished slavery just the way people treated their slaves and people are varying color at the time.

Technically slavery as it existed in Biblical times existed as the rich or middle class providing housing and food to the poor class was not only biblical but it was the way society ran for several thousands of years. They also used to treat their slaves with kindness and respect and treated them like one of their own and definitely not like the way Americans used to treat the African Americans. Once America came around slavery took a turn for the worse and I don't blame Lincoln one bit for starting the civil war. I'm not saying change the world and bring back slaves I'm just asking "should we have kept the slaves?"

I mean you could argue that slavery is out of date now and there isn't much for slaves to do anymore. But there is PLENTY that a slave could do for their master including things that a butler or a maid can do for us. And we don't have to pay like $200,000 a year for those services. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Everyone needs to be free. We are all one and commanded to love others as ourselves. We cannot wish anything on another that we ourselves would not want. I think perhaps you are thinking on taking care of someone, food, shelter in exchange for help. If they can walk away at anytime that is different.

 

[His student]

Should the world have kept slavery? Why or why not?

The world probably would have kept slavery if it had not been influenced and still is being influenced by the gospel.

"Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them. Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so." 1 Corinthians 7:20:21

The situation that most of us find ourselves in when called is free. I suspect we all want to stay free. So be it.

The people of the world that we preach the gospel to and who will receive the gospel are in the same condition for the most part in the 21st century as we are - namely free. If you asked them if they want to be slaves they would undoubtedly tell you no. So be it.

Paul tells slaves to gain their freedom if they can. We should help them fulfill the Lord's will in that as best we can IMO.

Paul, all slaves I have ever heard of, and those of us with the Spirit of Christ living in us who value their opinions say that slavery sucks.

I certainly hope that that includes you.

It seems to me to be a no-brainer really.

 

[bèlla]

What if the OP desiring to be a slave? Would you say it would be wrong for him to pursue that goal?

It would depend on the form of enslavement the OP was contemplating and the purpose of its undertaking. Since the OP is a believer his actions are meant to glorify God. And I would need to hear how that would happen.

 

[RaymondG]

It would depend on the form of enslavement the OP was contemplating and the purpose of its undertaking. Since the OP is a believer his actions are meant to glorify God. And I would need to hear how that would happen.

I dont need to know a reason....If I know you truly desire something....My desire is for you to have it. I dont believe God cares about the content of our desires either....He just gives us whatever we sow....and we decide later if we like the taste of the fruit at harvest time....and whether or not to plant those same seeds again.

I say let the OPer experience slavery for himself, and then see if he likes it.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Before everybody rages at me all at once, let me explain. I'm talking about keeping slavery as it existed before the Americans enslaved the African Americans and treated them like cattle ...etc.

...back when slavery was easy going?

I am NOT saying we should have kept enslaving the blacks and I think that the Civil war was a push in the right direction and exposed the awful way in which Americans used to enslave the blacks. But, merely that we should have kept slavery as it existed since the beginning of time from before that. We shouldn't have abolished slavery just the way people treated their slaves and people are varying color at the time.

Technically slavery as it existed in Biblical times existed as the rich or middle class providing housing and food to the poor class was not only biblical but it was the way society ran for several thousands of years. They also used to treat their slaves with kindness and respect and treated them like one of their own and definitely not like the way Americans used to treat the African Americans. Once America came around slavery took a turn for the worse and I don't blame Lincoln one bit for starting the civil war. I'm not saying change the world and bring back slaves I'm just asking "should we have kept the slaves?"

I mean you could argue that slavery is out of date now and there isn't much for slaves to do anymore. But there is PLENTY that a slave could do for their master including things that a butler or a maid can do for us. And we don't have to pay like $200,000 a year for those services. Do you agree? Why or why not?

People own themselves inalienably. Nobody else can possess another person's life. Since God designed us each with self ownership, it's morally objectionable to violate his design - to try to steal the gifts he has given to another person. So I would disagree with slavery on the basis of (a) self ownership, (b) the impossibility of possessing a life other than your own, and (c) a moral violation of God's design.

 

[bèlla]

I dont need to know a reason....If I know you truly desire something....My desire is for you to have it.

That is why I am mindful of sharing my desires and concerns with wise counselors operating in wisdom and intercession.

That is not a slight against you. But there are things I’ve desired that were not the Lord’s will for me. To support that or pray in agreement would be wrong.

I dont believe God cares about the content of our desires either....He just gives us whatever we sow....and we decide later if we like the taste of the fruit at harvest time....and whether or not to plant those same seeds again.

That has not been my experience with the Lord. He wants my will aligned with His.

 

[Light of the East]

Me thinks you need to pick up a copy of the New Testament.

You mean the part where St. Paul admonishes slaves to obey their masters?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

no human should own another human. period.

 

[Tyler52]

Before everybody rages at me all at once, let me explain. I'm talking about keeping slavery as it existed before the Americans enslaved the African Americans and treated them like cattle ...etc.

I am NOT saying we should have kept enslaving the blacks and I think that the Civil war was a push in the right direction and exposed the awful way in which Americans used to enslave the blacks. But, merely that we should have kept slavery as it existed since the beginning of time from before that. We shouldn't have abolished slavery just the way people treated their slaves and people are varying color at the time.

Technically slavery as it existed in Biblical times existed as the rich or middle class providing housing and food to the poor class was not only biblical but it was the way society ran for several thousands of years. They also used to treat their slaves with kindness and respect and treated them like one of their own and definitely not like the way Americans used to treat the African Americans. Once America came around slavery took a turn for the worse and I don't blame Lincoln one bit for starting the civil war. I'm not saying change the world and bring back slaves I'm just asking "should we have kept the slaves?"

I mean you could argue that slavery is out of date now and there isn't much for slaves to do anymore. But there is PLENTY that a slave could do for their master including things that a butler or a maid can do for us. And we don't have to pay like $200,000 a year for those services. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Slavery in ancient times was just as terrible if not more than that of the Africans. Thatvis why God regulated it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I am NOT saying we should have kept enslaving the blacks

Some people treated their slaves right and some people did not. Some people treat their animals right and some people abuse them. A good man takes good care of what has been entrusted to him. Those who destroy will be destoryed.