Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[2PhiloVoid]

You're correct, that is my position.
So who gets a place in the life boats on a sinking ship, basically? This will almost always be decided pragmatically based on each individual's value to the society. Value to society is somewhat subjective I suppose, but there are rational arguments to be made over who is absolutely essential.

It seems to me, then, that the concept of “Human Significance/Value” is paramount and most central to your heuristic on ethical thinking rather than would be “Human Flourishing.” The latter is contingent upon the former and this structure is in some ways not unlike what we find in the Bible. Human Significance comes FIRST, and then AFTERWARD, merits and allowances for Human Flourishing are considered. The main difference in your view from that of the God of the Bible is that in your case, the definition of Human Significance and its contingent outcomes are dependent upon your subjective state of mind (i.e. your perception and conceptions about ethics) which an individual such as yourself might have at any one moment.

But, again, feel free to correct this conclusion of mine.

In any case, this is a tough question for anyone to answer rationally. When I said there were rational ways to go about perpetuating human flourishing, I meant things more along the lines of reciprocity and solidarity. Out of curiosity, how would you answer this question?

… As a Christian, the 'rational' way to answer is to begin analyzing the problem and---excuse the seeming motto that just came to mind---then the Christian should “Prepare to Share….” Moreover, if we can “Meet the Need,” then we share with the intent to solve a problem and meet a need, which is so much the better. Additionally, the good thing about the ethics and moral expressions by which we Christians are to live and exist is that most situations we deal with won't have to take too much philosophical analysis by which we deliberate and figure out what the right or best course of action would be. Why? 'Cuz Jesus tells us what the right attitude and action is in general, and we can often work out the specifics for particular situations.

Where things get “funky” in Christian ethics is that we have to really dig down deep and utilize our rational capacities when we meet resistance from supposed alternative ethicists who propose moral solutions that are either diametrically opposed to the Will of God the Father as expressed through Christ or are simply more or less adulterated versions of what only seems to be morally apparent on the outer edges of our ethical sensibilities.

So, as Christians, it goes without saying that we should all be working toward general human flourishing for all well-intended persons and be advocates for the fact that each human being has substantial significance, realizing that the only way that human rights are diminished is when a person works harm upon those around him or herself. So, if we are egregious sinners, maybe even criminals, then to the extent we begin to harm others, we diminish or own rights to life and flourishing, despite the fact that we are each still significant by being all made “in the Image of God.”

Let's be careful, now. It's not that this approach is "better" (whatever that would mean) than that of Jesus, it's that this approach is more factually defensible than one based on the moral authority of Jesus/God/Holy Spirit.

I don't see how that bears out at the present moment, but I realize we haven't gone far in the discussion as yet, so there may be some things for me to learn as we progress here together.

I can tell you exactly why slavery is immoral using nothing but facts we both agree on. 1) The condition of being a slave is one of irredeemable suffering.

Actually, in the biblical case, if you honestly do a complete survey and take all details into account, biblical 'slavery' can be seen to be anything but open to causing irredeemable suffering … for those who want to worship God, whoever they may be, whether they're Israelite/Jew or Gentile.

2) Slaves are not and have never been necessary for the existence of the human race. 3) Unnecessary, irredeemable suffering is immoral to impose on someone. 4) Slavery constitutes unnecessary, irredeemable suffering. 5) Slavery is immoral.

Not if servitude serves the following two things: 1) a form of welfare for the well-intended FOREIGNER, or 2) a replacement for a prison system (which wasn't really in existence in ancient Israel).

A moral system based on Jesus, on the other hand, takes a lot more steps to condemn slavery as immoral, plus it then has to contend with the OT's implicit acceptance of the practice, and even then I don't think it can be successful.

Needless to say, I'll agree with you that it may very well take more steps by which to condemn slavery as immoral, but the number of steps tells us next to nothing about the ontology backing the ethical system being proffered, whether that proffering is from God or from some group of human beings who have come up with their own system of ethics.

Instead of basing morality on the rationally expected consequences of one's actions in terms of societal health (and in turn, personal well-being), such a system depends on the factual existence of God and his factual moral authority, both of which require long discussions at the end of which you and I are unlikely to agree. You don't necessarily have fewer facts on your side, especially if you're right, but I believe I can demonstrate the facts my side relies on better than you can yours. And that's not a comment on either of our debate skillsets, that's just based on the nature of the claim you'd have to defend vs. mine.

Well, until you actually bring your [SET] of supposed facts (however, those facts may, in fact, be interpreted by either you or me or in some other ways by other moral agents. It could turn out that both of us are dead-wrong.)

This is a separate question to the validity of a moral approach, but a fair one nonetheless. Moral actions will naturally improve the individual’s social standing, which makes everything easier for that individual. They’ll also align with one’s conscience, granted that it is based on empathy and an intuition of social consequences. Moral considerations are nothing more than practical considerations of social consequences.

Really? I just saw on an atheist website the other day an atheist saying that moral considerations were nothing more than practical considerations for personal consequences----like for instance, when making an illegal U-turn, the atheist guy said something to the effect that if one is willing to take the consequences of possibly getting a ticket from a police-officer, then by all means, do it. But you seem to imply that there's more to our consideration about moral consequences that just whether we're willing to be penalized or not; you seem to imply that the potential for harming others should play into our ethical definitions of whether making an illegal U-turn can be considered moral or not. Or am I misunderstanding you and you think the same as that other atheist? I don't want to misrepresent your position.

To the credit of your position, this would mean that an infinitely wise being would automatically be an absolute moral authority simply by virtue of its perfect foresight and judgment. The hard part for you is to demonstrate that it actually exists.

No, I think it would require more than just foresight and the ability to judge on the part of an Eternal Being; It would also have to be the Creator of everything, or else IT would just be an ethical interloper in the midst of what are otherwise human affairs on a human planet. We'd be dealing with Thanos rather than with Jesus Christ, the Logos of God.

I’m not a biblical scholar, but just going by the article you provided and our mutual disdain for a dynamic within which it was acceptable for one to severely whip another with no consequences as is clearly described in the Bible, I think the problem is clearly stated.

No, there are consequences listed in the Bible, and in saying this, I'm more or less thinking that you've succumbed to listening to too much of the atheist chutzpah which drips from the mouths of various atheistic podcasts. It's time for you to take the bull by the horns and actually enter the Hermeneutic Circle. I'd assume you're willing to do so since you seem to be fairly honest in your seeking here on CF and not a troll like a few others here are.

You are welcome to lead the way here in exploring how “(the master) shall not be punished” can be squared with the unacceptable nature of said dynamic.

… that could take a while. Are you willing to go the distance despite the fact that you and I likely have limited time in our busy lives to do so? It could take a while to gather the details.

Sure, and that doesn’t mean the crazy things other people are doing (including actual slavery that still exists in Asia and Africa) are moral.

Sure.

Well, I think the only reasons you can cite for wanting “love your neighbor” to be a mandate are practical ones; you’re someone’s neighbor and you’d like them to be nice to you, and if everyone’s nice and peaceful with each other you’ll have a very safe, predictable life.

….eh? I don't think that Jesus' definition of “loving our neighbors” is a paltry as that. No, he seems to be asking us to do something at a level that many, if not most, even apparently some Christians, are unwilling to do. It's a lot more than being 'nice.' In fact, I'm not sure that 'niceness' is the focal point of Christian Love.

Following such a mandate is doing your part to create the kind of society you want to live in.

Yeah, as I said, I think we both know there's supposed to be a lot more in Jesus' mandate to love other human being than just for the idea of creating seemingly "better" societies. On the part of pragmatic atheist and such, thus far, I don't think we quite have what we're all really hoping to have in this world, so we can just admit it. We humans have dismally failed to create any societies containing any real “peace" or of any magnificent levels of so-called human flourishing. In the Biblical view, as you already know, there are some reasons for this.

Even if you appeal to God’s authority rather than social consequences for this mandate, the only incentive you would have to follow said mandate would again be a practical one. God has some sort of consequences in store for those who do and do not obey, and you want the consequences of obedience.

So, when you consider breaking traffic rules, the only consideration that comes into your mind is whether you are willing to get a ticket or not? Surely not, gaara! You don't seem to come across to me as that type of guy.

 

[cvanwey]

No. Just the exact opposite.

Instead you will learn in the New Testament -- if you are willing to learn -- that the opposite is the case: those that abuse others, including servants, slaves, foreigners, (including 'illegal immigrants'), the poor, someone at court, your neighbor, your child, your neighbors child, you uncle, Fred's aunt -- all cases, A-Z, every kind of abuse of others, breaking Matthew 7:12, is always wrong, no exceptions, ever, and only those that repent and change can be saved. Those who continue in sin will die the second death.

Obviously a lot more than only slave owners are in great danger. But we can surmise especially slave owners as a group over time, especially, since involuntary slavery breaks Matthew 7:12.

You appear quite nimble and slippery, as you continue to avoid practically everything I state. You know you have nothing, so you keep reciting the same verse ad nauseam, in which I also responded to ad nauseam.

Please back up your 'knowledge' with Bible verses. I'll start:

'Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.'

Translation - Jesus is telling the slaves to work even harder, because their master is a believer. And again, Jesus does not define what a slave ISN'T. We only know WHAT constitutes as a 'slave'. And in the case of the Bible, chattle slavery is within an acceptable scope of practice. It would stand to reason, that the prior definitions, from the Bible, are still applicable. Otherwise, Jesus would have clarified; just like He does elsewhere on other topics and subjects

So for all we know, slaves are nothing more than property, as they are beaten and kept for life; as instructed acceptable by the Bible.

Basically, to be repetitive, they would need to free all their slaves that wanted freedom, and pay the rest a good wage. In order to have a chance on the Day of Judgement all will face, including us.

No kidding??? Where does Jesus state this?

And again:

1. If you are a Jew, you are not to be enslaved for life. But if you are not a Jew, you can be enslaved for life. If we are 'all one in' with Christ, why the Jewish favoritism? Seems as though Jesus is fond of the flesh, Jewish flesh specifically.

2. God allows slavery then, now, and forever. Any form of slavery is permissible, as slavery is not well defined. God does not consider slavery a sin.

3. Your notion of progressive revelation seems odd. God allows slavery, and does not consider it sin. So why then is there a need for it to later be changed or abolished?

4. God would know people use all forms of slavery. And yet, God never clarifies that any of such slavery is 'wrong.' If God knows humans are either dumb, or self serving, why would God not clarify what type of slavery is not permissible?

5. In affect, what (you) are saying, is that it is the Christians which don't like slavery... Why does Jesus not agree wholeheartedly? Why is it a 'feather in your cap' moment that America abolished slavery, when Jesus could care less if it's abolished? Jesus allows for it.

6. Slaves are considered property (less-than-human). Slave owners are to do with their slaves what they will, as instructed by the NT.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm addressing the seemingly relevant points, as they pertain to the OP.



Well, I see conflicts here.

1. God was NOT silent about the topic of slavery.

The silence was concerning the moral imperative of ending or abolishing slavery at the institutional level. Not the topic of slavery on the whole.

2. Since property is considered a possession, it would seem the 'golden rule' does not really apply to a 'slave', as a slave is merely nothing more than the slave master's property.

False premise resulting in a false conclusion. It is abundantly clear in the writings which make up the New Testament that "There is neither ... slave nor free", that slaves were to be regarded as brothers "no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother", that masters were to submit to their slaves "Masters, do the same to them", etc. This "but slaves aren't really people" argument of yours isn't going to fly here.

3. Even if the slave was still somehow considered equally human, you must still attempt to reconcile that most would not want to be enslaved for life, beaten for life, and considered property for life. So to attest about such verses as your fundamental 'principles' (i.e.) Matthew 7:12 or Mark 12:31, in relation to such allowances for basically all forms of slavery, appears as diametrically opposing propositions.[/COLOR]

Very astute of you to recognize that people probably don't want to be slaves. Hence part of my moral objection to slavery as an institution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cvanwey]

False premise resulting in a false conclusion. It is abundantly clear in the writings which make up the New Testament that "There is neither ... slave nor free", that slaves were to be regarded as brothers "no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother", that masters were to submit to their slaves "Masters, do the same to them", etc. This "but slaves aren't really people" argument of yours isn't going to fly here.

Not so fast sir. I would be interested to see the verses you are referencing?

Furthermore, as I've stated many times now. We have yet to establish what a slave is and is not.

You may be correct, in that there exists 'some' slaves, like 'Hebrew slaves', 'voluntary debt restitution workers', etc... But as I stated prior, the Bible also speaks about the buying of slaves from foreign lands, the beating of such slaves, the stated notion of them being property, and the passing down of such slaves as inheritance; ALL FOR LIFE.

Jesus appears to later offer nothing, in regards to such prior definitions being negated/amended/eradicated. And please remember, humans are dumb, when compared to the all-knowing God. God would certainly know that millions of humans would get it wrong, and employ unwanted types of slavery, if not well defined. So either God does not care, like He does with many other topics to clarify. Or, He is perfectly a-okay with even chattle slavery.

So I ask you honestly two questions...

1. If chattle slavery was again legal, would God consider it a sin, in light of the God given expressed Bible passages citing as such?

2. Is a chattle slave equal to it's master, being as chattle slave, as well as non-Hebrew slaves, are considered property for life?

Thus far, my contention seems to 'fly' just fine.

So until you start demonstrating verses, which completely over turn such axiomatic cited definitions, provided by God, I stand firm

Very astute of you to recognize that people probably don't want to be slaves. Hence part of my moral objection to slavery as an institution.

-CryptoLutheran

Well, God does not agree with you. He allows for it. Thus, He is either indifferent, and/or likes to regulate how it is to work --> (allowing for chattle slavery as well). Which He seems to do, as He mentions as such in the Bible. Otherwise, He would not have expressed as such

 

[Halbhh]

Was Philemon 'saved' or not when Paul wrote the letter?

We can't even guess at such things remotely with little information, because we cannot know what their actual interactions with other are nor even whether they believe(!) without knowing far more about them than most people ever could except perhaps only those immediately around them. We do know that we can see fruits that show whether someone believes -- whether they love all those around them vs whether they only love a few (which would show they aren't there yet). Famously even Peter was at one point "condemned" -- Galatians chapter 2 -- for a time, until he turned and changed and stopped that evil he had gone into.

 

[Halbhh]

You appear quite nimble and slippery, as you continue to avoid practically everything I state. You know you have nothing, so you keep reciting the same verse ad nauseam, in which I also responded to ad nauseam.

Please back up your 'knowledge' with Bible verses. I'll start:

'Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.'

Translation - Jesus is telling the slaves to work even harder, because their master is a believer. And again, Jesus does not define what a slave ISN'T. We only know WHAT constitutes as a 'slave'. And in the case of the Bible, chattle slavery is within an acceptable scope of practice. It would stand to reason, that the prior definitions, from the Bible, are still applicable. Otherwise, Jesus would have clarified; just like He does elsewhere on other topics and subjects

So for all we know, slaves are nothing more than property, as they are beaten and kept for life; as instructed acceptable by the Bible.



No kidding??? Where does Jesus state this?

And again:

1. If you are a Jew, you are not to be enslaved for life. But if you are not a Jew, you can be enslaved for life. If we are 'all one in' with Christ, why the Jewish favoritism? Seems as though Jesus is fond of the flesh, Jewish flesh specifically.

2. God allows slavery then, now, and forever. Any form of slavery is permissible, as slavery is not well defined. God does not consider slavery a sin.

3. Your notion of progressive revelation seems odd. God allows slavery, and does not consider it sin. So why then is there a need for it to later be changed or abolished?

4. God would know people use all forms of slavery. And yet, God never clarifies that any of such slavery is 'wrong.' If God knows humans are either dumb, or self serving, why would God not clarify what type of slavery is not permissible?

5. In affect, what (you) are saying, is that it is the Christians which don't like slavery... Why does Jesus not agree wholeheartedly? Why is it a 'feather in your cap' moment that America abolished slavery, when Jesus could care less if it's abolished? Jesus allows for it.

6. Slaves are considered property (less-than-human). Slave owners are to do with their slaves what they will, as instructed by the NT.

To be objective would be to admit slavery meaning involuntary slavery was ended, and something far more far reaching also has been accomplished. Not just merely ending what 99% of people call 'slavery', but far more than only ending that alone. No one can make someone else objective though. You have to do that on your own.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Please stop repeatedly skipping over the actual details of what I've asserted and what I'm, therefore, having to repeatedly having to reaffirm. And while you're at it, please explain how ALL of the laws in the Torah and the statements of the prophets which pertain to the humane and caring treatment of well-intended FOREIGNERS wouldn't have impinged upon the ways in which ancient Israelite legal adjudicators would have interpreted how allowances for suppositions of slavery would have been handled overall.

Please just make your points plainly if you wish a response. I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Slavery continues today.

Humans are in a temporary life in which we need internal change , because what's needed isn't only to do an occasional kindness, or even something good each day, say like a criminal might (to help illustrate), but something instead to actually change us fundamentally inside.

In the 'heart'. So that instead of the million ways people typically mistreat others, from disregard, cutting off, gossiping against, making jokes at the expense of, misrepresenting, just All the not -love actions from ignoring all the way to murder...that we stop wanting to do those.

That's like changing human nature.

It's not a couple of years of self improvement and a shift working at a charity....

Something much deeper --

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor iand hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies...

46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "

No one can do this much, long, without a profound change inside. This is what Christ came.

So that we could change, those "few" (not everyone, but some) that would follow Him.

It's not at all simply saying one is Christian and making a show. The real thing leads to real change in the heart.
46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

All I see there is a lot of assertions, none of which address the obvious fact that God Himself sanctioned slavery and approved of it.
I have a feeling that you're unable to address this, and so are not bothering to try.
Also, I got a little confused reading that, and wonder if you had problems with your quoting.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Can you please stop dodging my requests? I will gladly update them again for you. You know, the ones you keep avoiding:

Excellent point. I would also like to see responses to those questions. You've posted them several times now, and its beginning to look like @Halbhh doesn't have answers to them.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

False premise resulting in a false conclusion. It is abundantly clear in the writings which make up the New Testament that "There is neither ... slave nor free", that slaves were to be regarded as brothers "no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother", that masters were to submit to their slaves "Masters, do the same to them", etc. This "but slaves aren't really people" argument of yours isn't going to fly here.

This is just silly. You've plucked two different verses out of context, neither of which actually applies to the debate of slavery, and you think that this makes your case "abundantly clear"?
When Paul was writing to the Galatians, he meant that anyone, slave or free, could become a Christian. He wasn't saying that all Christians should be free, much less that slavery should be abolished. He was saying that Christianity was for everyone, no matter where they came from and no matter their position.
Also - and this is really quite amusing - Paul was talking about circumcision here. Not whether or not one should enslave people; whether or not one should have a piece of one's penis snipped off.

As to "no longer a bondservant", this is a snippet from Paul's letter to Philemon about Onesimus, and there are three problems in trying to use this to justify abolition: (a) there is considerable debate in Christian circles today as to whether Paul was actually asking for Philemon to legally free his slave, or whether he was speaking of spiritual freedom; (b) even if he was asking P. to free O. he was doing it because O. had become his friend, not because slavery was wrong; and (c) this is in no way a call for any other slaves to be freed, or for slavery to be abolished.

Can I advise you, in future, to refrain from pulling sentences out of context?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please just make your points plainly if you wish a response. I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say.

ok. I'll reiterate:

• Please stop skipping over the details I offer.

• Please explain how O.T. laws about caring for WELL-INTENDED FOREIGNERS (STRANGERS & SOJOURNERS) somehow don't apply to the 'slavery discussion.'

• Please explain how the Israelite legal adjudicators would have handled the supposed 'slave trade' which you atheists keep harping upon.

There, is that simple enough for ya?!

 

[Tinker Grey]

We can't even guess at such things remotely with little information, because we cannot know what their actual interactions with other are nor even whether they believe(!) without knowing far more about them than most people ever could except perhaps only those immediately around them. We do know that we can see fruits that show whether someone believes -- whether they love all those around them vs whether they only love a few (which would show they aren't there yet). Famously even Peter was at one point "condemned" -- Galatians chapter 2 -- for a time, until he turned and changed and stopped that evil he had gone into.

Strange. It seems Paul considered him such.

1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,

To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker— 2 also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier—and to the church that meets in your home:

3 Grace and peace to you[a] from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear about your love for all his holy people and your faith in the Lord Jesus. 6 I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ. 7 Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the Lord’s people.​

And yet ... and yet ... he hadn't given up slavery.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Strange. It seems Paul considered him such.

1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,

To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker— 2 also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier—and to the church that meets in your home:

3 Grace and peace to you[a] from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear about your love for all his holy people and your faith in the Lord Jesus. 6 I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ. 7 Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the Lord’s people.​

And yet ... and yet ... he hadn't given up slavery.

Maybe because Paul understood that Jesus didn't come as the Conquering Jewish Messiah whom the more politically zealous Jews (like Judas, for instance) thought would arrive to directly challenge and throw off Roman hegemony and thus 'free' the world. So, Roman Slavery, along with the other, lesser form of servitude that the Jews might practice, wouldn't be something easily eradicable.

No, Paul saw that the only way to 'liberate' the world was by working to bring as many people to Christ as possible, since a part of being Christian, as was taught by Jesus and His Apostles, was to treat other Christians with equality, fraternity, dignity, and love and thus do away with "LORDING IT OVER" other people, such as the Romans were, and have been, prone to do ...........................................oh so prone!

 

[Halbhh]

Strange. It seems Paul considered him such.

1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,

To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker— 2 also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier—and to the church that meets in your home:

3 Grace and peace to you[a] from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear about your love for all his holy people and your faith in the Lord Jesus. 6 I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ. 7 Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the Lord’s people.​

And yet ... and yet ... he hadn't given up slavery.

You'd want to read Philemon to see the playing out of faith over time regarding the old slavery. Ending it.

Involuntary slavery was ending for those actually doing as Christ said, though voluntary service was expanded, as we are all to serve one another by Christ's instruction.

We are now all to be in service of each other. This won't make sense without community/love/brotherhood -- the voluntary service is exactly about these.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is just silly. You've plucked two different verses out of context, neither of which actually applies to the debate of slavery, and you think that this makes your case "abundantly clear"?
When Paul was writing to the Galatians, he meant that anyone, slave or free, could become a Christian. He wasn't saying that all Christians should be free, much less that slavery should be abolished. He was saying that Christianity was for everyone, no matter where they came from and no matter their position.
Also - and this is really quite amusing - Paul was talking about circumcision here. Not whether or not one should enslave people; whether or not one should have a piece of one's penis snipped off.

As to "no longer a bondservant", this is a snippet from Paul's letter to Philemon about Onesimus, and there are three problems in trying to use this to justify abolition: (a) there is considerable debate in Christian circles today as to whether Paul was actually asking for Philemon to legally free his slave, or whether he was speaking of spiritual freedom; (b) even if he was asking P. to free O. he was doing it because O. had become his friend, not because slavery was wrong; and (c) this is in no way a call for any other slaves to be freed, or for slavery to be abolished.

Can I advise you, in future, to refrain from pulling sentences out of context?

It would appear that the problem of context is in your reading of my post. My argument wasn't that these passages are about the abolition of slavery.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tinker Grey]

You'd want to read Philemon to see the playing out of faith over time regarding the old slavery. Ending it.

Involuntary slavery was ending for those actually doing as Christ said, though voluntary service was expanded, as we are all to serve one another by Christ's instruction.

We are now all to be in service of each other. This won't make sense without community/love/brotherhood -- the voluntary service is exactly about these.

So you don't deny that Paul considered Philemon saved. Correct?

Yet you said:

Slave owners once converted to Christianity would need to free their slaves (all that wanted freedom), and treat any that remained as employees with fair wages (as they would a hired hand).

Or else they go to the place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" because of continuing in clear wrongs, losing eternal life. In the vernacular, "going to hell."

Philemon had NOT freed his slaves. Nor did Paul command him to free ALL his slaves nor even O; it was just a request.

Had Philemon died before Paul's letter arrived, would he have gone to hell?

 

[Halbhh]

So you don't deny that Paul considered Philemon saved. Correct?

Yet you said:


Philemon had NOT freed his slaves. Nor did Paul command him to free ALL his slaves nor even O; it was just a request.

Had Philemon died before Paul's letter arrived, would he have gone to hell?

If Philemon having received Paul's letter didn't do as Paul wrote asking him to treat Onesimus as a full equal and as he would Paul...if that had happened...then it would have become clear he didn't believe in that hypothetical scenario.

What if Philemon died early before more fully carrying out Matthew 7:12 in his own life, but only progressing a certain extent, and not yet a more advanced extent? In this 2nd hypothetical scenario, a common type, he would be judged fairly on the basis of what He understood up to that point in time, and what he was doing, whether he was following Christ as best he could up to that point in time.

 

[Halbhh]

Philemon had NOT freed his slaves.

Since you used the plural here, what source are you using?

 

[gaara4158]

The main difference in your view from that of the God of the Bible is that in your case, the definition of Human Significance and its contingent outcomes are dependent upon your subjective state of mind (i.e. your perception and conceptions about ethics) which an individual such as yourself might have at any one moment.

But, again, feel free to correct this conclusion of mine.

Yes and no. Remember that from my approach, morality is just a heuristic we use to decide if any given behavior is good or bad for human flourishing. Our reasons for being moral might be dependent on our subjective state of mind, but morality itself doesn’t change. And as far as I can tell, this is true for Christian morality as well. Morality is from God, but your reasons for being moral will still be subject to your state of mind. It seems to me that the only difference between my approach and yours is that, aside from yours having specific non-negotiable moral commandments, you have a god somehow vindicating the common belief that human life is valuable. But that belief doesn’t need to be vindicated (nor do I think it can be, since value is inherently subjective) in order to motivate behavior.

… As a Christian, the 'rational' way to answer is to begin analyzing the problem and---excuse the seeming motto that just came to mind---then the Christian should “Prepare to Share….” Moreover, if we can “Meet the Need,” then we share with the intent to solve a problem and meet a need, which is so much the better. Additionally, the good thing about the ethics and moral expressions by which we Christians are to live and exist is that most situations we deal with won't have to take too much philosophical analysis by which we deliberate and figure out what the right or best course of action would be. Why? 'Cuz Jesus tells us what the right attitude and action is in general, and we can often work out the specifics for particular situations.

But your question stipulated that the needs couldn’t be met for everyone. My answer would have been the same as yours if I could just suggest that everyone share smaller pieces of the needed goods. In any case, it’s clear we have similar moral sensibilities. And I agree that it’s convenient to have general guidelines from Jesus, but I think it’s dangerous to take them at face value if you can’t go back and justify them in terms of well-being.

Where things get “funky” in Christian ethics is that we have to really dig down deep and utilize our rational capacities when we meet resistance from supposed alternative ethicists who propose moral solutions that are either diametrically opposed to the Will of God the Father as expressed through Christ or are simply more or less adulterated versions of what only seems to be morally apparent on the outer edges of our ethical sensibilities.

So, as Christians, it goes without saying that we should all be working toward general human flourishing for all well-intended persons and be advocates for the fact that each human being has substantial significance, realizing that the only way that human rights are diminished is when a person works harm upon those around him or herself. So, if we are egregious sinners, maybe even criminals, then to the extent we begin to harm others, we diminish or own rights to life and flourishing, despite the fact that we are each still significant by being all made “in the Image of God.”

This is all good, but the major catch is it’s only compelling if you happen to believe in God and his moral authority. Take away the god, and suddenly you don’t know how to justify any of your moral posturings. That’s why we see so many Christian apologists trying to “stump” atheists by asking “if there is no God, how can you say Hitler was really wrong?” I think my approach is stronger because it doesn’t require belief in as many things, just in the wisdom of making positive contributions to societal well-being. To a certain extent, we can demonstrate objectively how contributing to a healthier society directly contributes to your own personal well-being. We can’t, as far as I’ve seen, demonstrate the existence of God.

Actually, in the biblical case, if you honestly do a complete survey and take all details into account, biblical 'slavery' can be seen to be anything but open to causing irredeemable suffering … for those who want to worship God, whoever they may be, whether they're Israelite/Jew or Gentile.

Are you saying that biblical slavery is acceptable as long as it’s being done to people who don’t want to worship God?

Not if servitude serves the following two things: 1) a form of welfare for the well-intended FOREIGNER, or 2) a replacement for a prison system (which wasn't really in existence in ancient Israel).

I’m not too worried about servitude, it’s the owner-property dynamic that looks immoral to me. But we'll get into that soon, I think.

Needless to say, I'll agree with you that it may very well take more steps by which to condemn slavery as immoral, but the number of steps tells us next to nothing about the ontology backing the ethical system being proffered, whether that proffering is from God or from some group of human beings who have come up with their own system of ethics.

Well, the number of steps doesn't matter, but the number of beliefs required to make it compelling does, and that's what I'm arguing mine has fewer of.

Well, until you actually bring your [SET] of supposed facts (however, those facts may, in fact, be interpreted by either you or me or in some other ways by other moral agents. It could turn out that both of us are dead-wrong.)

The facts I was talking about were the 5 I had listed before, which we've now begun to interpret above.

Really? I just saw on an atheist website the other day an atheist saying that moral considerations were nothing more than practical considerations for personal consequences----like for instance, when making an illegal U-turn, the atheist guy said something to the effect that if one is willing to take the consequences of possibly getting a ticket from a police-officer, then by all means, do it. But you seem to imply that there's more to our consideration about moral consequences that just whether we're willing to be penalized or not; you seem to imply that the potential for harming others should play into our ethical definitions of whether making an illegal U-turn can be considered moral or not. Or am I misunderstanding you and you think the same as that other atheist? I don't want to misrepresent your position.

There are all kinds of practical considerations of personal consequences that no one would really label as "moral," such as laying out your clothes for the next day by your bed at night so you don't have to go looking for them in the morning. There are clear personal consequences for failing to do this, but no one would call it a moral behavior. That's why I think it's more accurate to say that moral considerations are practical considerations of social consequences, even if all you really care about are the social consequences that translate directly to personal consequences.

No, I think it would require more than just foresight and the ability to judge on the part of an Eternal Being; It would also have to be the Creator of everything, or else IT would just be an ethical interloper in the midst of what are otherwise human affairs on a human planet. We'd be dealing with Thanos rather than with Jesus Christ, the Logos of God.

I don't know about that. From my approach, all our attempts at enforcing morality have been attempts to create a society that bears out the best possible consequences for every member without sacrificing any one for another. Thanos automatically fails at that endeavor (don't get me started on his boneheaded final solution) while an infinitely wise person would be perfectly equipped to set the rules.

No, there are consequences listed in the Bible, and in saying this, I'm more or less thinking that you've succumbed to listening to too much of the atheist chutzpah which drips from the mouths of various atheistic podcasts. It's time for you to take the bull by the horns and actually enter the Hermeneutic Circle. I'd assume you're willing to do so since you seem to be fairly honest in your seeking here on CF and not a troll like a few others here are.

I'd like nothing more than to do so.

….eh? I don't think that Jesus' definition of “loving our neighbors” is a paltry as that. No, he seems to be asking us to do something at a level that many, if not most, even apparently some Christians, are unwilling to do. It's a lot more than being 'nice.' In fact, I'm not sure that 'niceness' is the focal point of Christian Love.

Well, whatever else you want to add into what you mean by "love your neighbor", all the better for my point. If everyone loves their neighbor, it's surely a better situation to live in than everyone not doing that.

So, when you consider breaking traffic rules, the only consideration that comes into your mind is whether you are willing to get a ticket or not? Surely not, gaara! You don't seem to come across to me as that type of guy.

No cop, no stop! No, only kidding. There are a few considerations that come into mind when I have the option to break traffic rules. First is safety. Safety is the main reason traffic laws exist anyway, aren't they? I don't want to hurt myself, anyone else, or damage anyone's property. My next concern would be if anyone is watching. Not just those with authority to give me a fine, but other drivers who don't have access to my reasoning and would just witness someone breaking a traffic law and getting away with it. This would be setting an unsafe example, which would only increase the number of unsafe drivers on the road. Finally, my last consideration is why I'm even thinking about doing it. Is there a life-and-death situation dependent on my timely arrival to wherever I'm going? I don't want to make a habit of ignoring traffic signs just because I might get away with it. That can only lead to unsafe habits. In most situations, I'll just follow the rules. But if there's no one around and that illegal u-turn is the last chance to turn around in the next 10 miles, I'm taking it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thank you. Your conciseness is appreciated.

Please stop skipping over the details I offer.

I'm sorry. I shall go back and check to see what I missed.

Please explain how O.T. laws about caring for WELL-INTENDED FOREIGNERS (STRANGERS & SOJOURNERS) somehow don't apply to the 'slavery discussion.'

This may be something I missed - but it sounds like I should be asking you to explain how they do. I shall go back and check.

Please explain how the Israelite legal adjudicators would have handled the supposed 'slave trade' which you atheists keep harping upon.

Please explain the relevance of this. As far as I can tell, we are not having a debate about the logistics of slave practices among the Israelites; we are having a debate about whether or not God supports slavery.
I imagine, however, that the Israelite legal system, such as it was, would have handled the slave trade in much the same way as other legal systems throughout history have - by establishing laws regulating its conduct. Is there a problem here I'm missing?