Why did America allow slavery?

[RDKirk]

There certainly were Christian abolitionists, but their position was in direct conflict with what God in the Bible said about slavery, not in line with it.

Nope.

 

[Mike from NJ]

Nope.

I was editing my previous post while you were creating your detailed response, so you may have missed another question I added.

You said it was common knowledge by the 1800s that slavery was a sin in the eyes of Christ. Putting aside where the vast majority of pro-slavery people in America were Christian, I ask where does Christ say that? Where does he oppose what God the Father said about slavery? The only mention of slavery Jesus makes is in an analogy where he talks about how it's necessary slaves get lashes even if they don't know what they did was wrong.

 

[anetazo]

Africa and America are both guilty of slavery. Some African tribes were catching other Africans and delivered them to the Dutch and Portugal. They were shipped to America and Caribbean islands. Great Britain is guilty of having slaves. There's some evil people in the world. And theirs also some decent people. A child of light would never do slavery. These are children of darkness who follow satan who did this evil. Leviticus, Israel was to free a Hebrew slave every 7 years. Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. Moses led them to promise land. Israel was not to mistreat foreigners in thier province. The revolution war, 1770s. Was about wealthy people who wanted the wealthy in power. Its no accident wealthy people got into Congress. Washington was wealthy, and John Adam's, and Jefferson, ect. Washington and Jefferson had slaves. Is this adding up??. The wealthy only wanted to enrich themselves. The revolution was about the wealthy people. The civil war finally brought end to slavery. Romans chapter 6, Your either servant of righteousness or servant of Sin. Bondage is from satan. Many people are spiritually in Bondage from traditions of men. Galatians chapter 2 to document. Satan uses false preachers to lie and manipulate people in some churches. Yes. Bondage is very much alive. Peace.

 

[RDKirk]

I was editing my previous post while you were creating your detailed response, so you may have missed another question I added.

You said it was common knowledge by the 1800s that slavery was a sin in the eyes of Christ. Putting aside where the vast majority of pro-slavery people in America were Christian, I ask where does Christ say that? Where does he oppose what God the Father said about slavery? The only mention of slavery Jesus makes is in an analogy where he talks about how it's necessary slaves get lashes even if they don't know what they did was wrong.

Are you a "red-letter" Christian? Do you believe only what third-parties report as the specific words of Jesus (since Jesus didn't write any of the scriptures Himself) count for Christian living?

I've provided that answer before in these forums, but the answer doesn't appeal to red-letter Christians.

 

[BeyondET]

You do know that slavery existed all over the world in every race and tribe? Slavery was as normal as breathing. The strong enslaved the weak. Businesses were made profitable from selling people among all the other regular goods. The slave trade was very lucrative for African kings. For the Colonists coming over to the new land slaves were plentiful and cheap to buy on the African coasts.

Why slaves? The question was why not? Why would they not use slaves when it was viewd as normal and made them gretaer profits? The same reason why later they moved to machines, because machinery worked even better than humans. It made them greater profits and like most things profit was the end goal. It was machinery that made much of slavery obsolete. Did some people cry out against slavery? Of course, but nobody listened to them, why would they? Does anyone listen to us as we cry out that society is rife with immorality, nope. They laugh and tell us to 'get with it'.

Now if you don't know history and think that slavery was something unique to the Americas, unique to Africans, then this how false narratives and hate begins. This is how an us vs them mentality is brewed. When you understand that Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Asians enslaved other Asians, Africans enslaved other Africans and Native people enslaved other Native peoples. That it was later due to the ease of buying slaves in markets and the advancement of large ships that allowed for cross race slavery; then you understand what slavery really was and how cultures can find sin not only normal but good.

Today people are slaves to immorality and think debauchery is completely normal, that books on inappropriate contentography are fine in school libraries without the harm being seen or understood. Hopefully in a hundred years this will all be a bad dream and people can point back and talk about horrible it was and why was it allowed?

It still is, nothing has changed, today there are 50 million people enslaved all over the world including the U.S. around 400,000 each year.

A quarter of 50mil are children.

 

[RDKirk]

It still is, nothing has changed, today there are 50 million people enslaved all over the world including the U.S. around 400,000 each year.

A quarter of 50mil are children.

It's inane to say "nothing has changed."

It would not be underground. The number of people enslaved would be in the billions if "nothing had changed."

 

[ViaCrucis]

People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.

I mean, Solomon said it best, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

The Atlantic Slave Trade financed European colonial empires. And then colonialism was perceived as the right of nations, and all manner of explanations were propped up as to why it was right and good to go and plunder, for "God, king, and country". That people were stolen away from their homes, sold into servitude, and their children and children's children and children's children's children were now property to serve those interests; and that indigenous populations needed to be subjugated and "civilized" was all excusable and justified because it was a "sacred destiny" of "Christian" civilization to exploit the world.

Nations grew fat and wealthy, so fat and wealthy that their colonial territories became fat and wealthy and broke away to become their own sovereign territory. And those new colonial nations went and became empires and made new colonial expansions of their territory--on the backs of the poor, on the backs of the enslaved, on the backs of subjugated indigenous peoples.

Evil begets evil. And men, frequently, call evil good and good evil; because as Jeremiah the prophet reminds us, "The heart is deceitful above all else and desperately sick, who can understand it?"

America was borne of evil. As Americans we may not want to admit it, but this nation of ours was founded and built on the blood of countless victims.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BeyondET]

It's inane to say "nothing has changed."

It would not be underground. The number of people enslaved would be in the billions if "nothing had changed."

Slavery is alive and well, I'm not sure what you thought I meant. That wasn't it.

So there's no problem with 50 Million enslaved?

 

[RDKirk]

Slavery is alive and well, I'm not sure what you thought I meant. That wasn't it.

So there's no problem with 50 Million enslaved?

I really dislike rush-to-absurdity responses that one frequently gets on the Internet. Doing that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

You said "nothing has changed."

You are wrong. You can modify your statement or just continue saying absurd things.

 

[BeyondET]

I really dislike rush-to-absurdity responses that one frequently gets on the Internet. Doing that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

You said "nothing has changed."

You are wrong. You can modify your statement or just continue saying absurd things.

Nothing has changed slavery is still going on is that better?

 

[Diamond7]

America was borne of evil. As Americans we may not want to admit it, but this nation of ours was founded and built on the blood of countless victims.

People like to exploit others. That is why I was self-employed. I am not going to work to put money in the pocket of someone that does not want to work.

 

[Larniavc]

It's inane to say "nothing has changed."

It would not be underground. The number of people enslaved would be in the billions if "nothing had changed."

To be fair a lot of the precepts of slavery have evolved into the prison population in America.

 

[RDKirk]

To be fair a lot of the precepts of slavery have evolved into the prison population in America.

To be fair, nobody is born in prison a convict. You diminish the horror of a nation having a culture of slavery.

 

[Larniavc]

To be fair, nobody is born in prison a convict. You diminish the horror of a nation having a culture of slavery.

I’m not saying they are the same. I thought that that would be clear from what I wrote. Apologies for any confusion.

 

[Gracchus]

People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.

In biblical slavery, one could only hold a Jew in slavery for seven years, but non-Jews were permanent property. And if, during that seven years, you "gave" that slave a wife, that wife and any children remained your slave when the Jewish slave was set free. In other words, if a Jew was born a slave, he remained a slave.

 

[Mike from NJ]

Are you a "red-letter" Christian? Do you believe only what third-parties report as the specific words of Jesus (since Jesus didn't write any of the scriptures Himself) count for Christian living?

I've provided that answer before in these forums, but the answer doesn't appeal to red-letter Christians.

Are you a Marcionist? That's the only explanation for why you might think God the Son disagrees with the God the Father on slavery.

 

[RDKirk]

Are you a Marcionist? That's the only explanation for why you might think God the Son disagrees with the God the Father on slavery.

I see God the Father in the Old Covenant already moving to restrict slavery compared to how it was practiced before the Law, and the concept of restriction to abolition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant applies in other areas as well.

Yes, the Mosaic Law permitted chattel slavery of non-Jews by Jews as well as debt slavery of Jews to other Jews.

God did not create Jews to be chattel to other Jews, but He did permit Jews to become indebted to other Jews.

One of the things that should become clear as one contemplates the Mosaic Covenant with the New Testament is that the Mosaic Covenant was the Lord's first formal code for a people who were basically Bronze Age riff-raff that had a long way to go before becoming the kind of people the Lord ultimately wanted as His light to the world.

Moses: "I can't bear these people! Lord, if you love me, kill me now!" -- Numbers 11.

God: I have seen these people the LORD said to Moses, and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation. -- Exodus 32

Those people were so bad both God and Moses got fed up with at times. God and Moses had to encourage each other to put up with them. These were not people that were going to be made into a morally perfect 21st Century Modern Civilization. The Mosaic Law does contain moral compromises. We get an explanation of the moral compromises within the Mosaic Law even from Jesus:

"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." -- Matthew 19

Matthew 5 itself is a virtual repudiation of the moral compromises of the Mosaic Law, compromises made because those Bronze Age people were not ready for better behavior.

Compare the Mosaic Law with the earlier law of Hammurabi or the contemporary laws of Egypt, and we see a tremendously more advanced treatment of slaves (as well as women, for that matter). The Law was a baby step away from the practices of pagans before them.

So what we see in Leviticus 25 is the same "baby step" we see in Deuteronomy 24 that Jesus referenced with respect to divorce. Their hearts were too hard to become perfect, but they could take a baby step: Don't enslave your fellow Israelite as chattel.
This is called "progressive revelation."

Incidentally, with specific regard to Philemon and Onesimus, even Leviticus 25 was fully valid for Paul to use to direct Philemon to free Onesimus after Paul said "If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me." Even Leviticus 25 was sufficient to declare, at the very least, "Don't enslave your fellow Christian as chattel."

The Church had determined that slavery was prohibited in the first two centuries, and the Church had abandoned it. When Constantine gave the Church a stake an empire that depended on slavery, Church prohibition was blunted in favor of the needs of the empire.

But even in that time, the Church never gave slavery any theological justification. There were Popes who permitted it on the basis of the rights of nations--not theology.

Protestants arrived at the conclusion that slavery was sinful throughout the Protestant world, including the American south by the late 1700s. Even Southerners at the time acknowledged its sinfulness. That changed in the South--and only in the South--with the invention of the cotton gin, which made slavery wildly profitable.

It is only in the American south in the early 1800s that any theological justification has ever been posed by Christians, and that justification was obviously absurd.

"But Jesus didn't preach against slavery!"

Something important to note is that it was not (and is not) the mission of the Church to "fix" the Roman empire. If you read 1 Peter, you see that the Body of Christ operates as a "diplomatic mission" to the nations of the world, representing the Kingdom of Heaven.

The "slavery" permitted within the culture of believers, both OT and NT, was debt bondage, not chattel slavery. God did not create Jews to be chattel to other Jews, but He did permit Jews to become indebted to other Jews. Debt bondage is the same thing any of us might enter as an "unsecured loan." Like debt bondage in ancient times, that unsecured loan debt can be bought and sold by its owners.

However, debt bondage under the Mosaic Law had distinct and severe limits to prevent a "slave class" from ever occurring among Jews. As well, even while in debt bondage, the debtor could not be treated as chattel, but still was recognized as a Jew and chosen of God.

This continued in the New Testament. It was not the mission of the Body of Christ to "fix" the Roman Empire. The Body of Christ is a diplomatic mission to the nations of this world, and as any diplomatic mission, it must obey the laws of the host nation outside its gates. However, within the gates of the diplomatic mission, the laws of the home nation prevail.

That is how it is with the Body of Christ. Outside the context of the Body of Christ and its members, the host nation laws prevail. Within the context of the Body of Christ and its members, the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven prevail (this is referenced in practical detail in 1 Corinthians 5).

Before we get to the letter to Philemon, there are some other points to note. Slavery in the Roman empire occurred in two ways:

1. As a person kidnapped or taken as a war prisoner into slavery, becoming a chattel slave.
2. A freeborn man entering debt bondage or becoming a slave as a penalty for theft.

Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you, although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. -- 1 Corinthians 7

Paul speaks of slavery as though it had an optional component. That was possible for debt bondage. It was not possible for chattel slavery. Paul could say, "Don't go into debt." Paul could not say, "Don't be kidnapped."

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers ;and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine -- 1 Timothy 1

Thus, the slave trade of kidnapping is made illegal within the Body of Christ. Going into debt is permitted but counseled against.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. -- Ephesians 6

To a Christian who had slaves this verse is a jaw dropper. It changes everything.

If the slave owner considered the slave his personal property, this verse creates a different relationship. Both persons are actually the slaves of the Lord. That makes the "slave" no longer the property of the "master," but his responsibility under the one who is the Master of both of them--for the Master sees no existential difference between them--they are both His property, both bought for a price.

Now, to Paul's letter to Philemon. The first question to ask: What is the purpose of this letter? Latter apologists for slavery and those who wish to accuse Christianity of condoning slavery both claim the letter is nothing more than a plea from Paul for Philemon merely to be nice to Onesimus.

One would have to explain, though, why a mere "be nice" letter would have been cherished, preserved, copied, and shared among the early Christians and eventually considered of such significant doctrinal importance to have been included as part of the Canon.

The tone and deep emotion of the letter also belies the claim that its purpose is so shallow. If the point were merely "be nice," it's more likely Paul would have included it as a closing point to a congregational letter, such as he did to Euodia and Syntyche at the end of the letter to the Philippians.

No, this letter clearly has a singular and very important message personally to Philemon and doctrinally to the Body of Christ. Its purpose was to secure the freedom of Onesimus, and as preserved by the early Christians for doctrine, it was recognized as directive to the entire early church.

Indeed, history indicates that slavery among Christians had died out until Christianity became the national religion of the Empire...which depended economically on slavery. At that point, the empire was able to use the Church to validate all of its actions.

On to Philemon:

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.

Translation: I have a big stick, but I'm going to speak softly.

It is as none other than Paul ;an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus;

Translation: You know me--I am your elder and I suffer even now for the Body in which you are a member.

that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains....I am sending him who is my very heart back to you.

Translation: I consider Onesimus my own son--which is about the most important familial relationship possible in this society. Men value their sons more than they value their wives. Just want you to know how serious this is to me.

I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.

Translation: But there is a legal matter I need you to attend to.

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

Translation: What part of "no longer as a slave" is hard to understand? "No longer as a slave" does not mean "be nice to him as a slave." "No longer as a slave" actually means "no longer as a slave."

If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.

Translation: He was a slave because of a debt he owed you (which is the only bondage we allow among Christians)--so put that debt on my tab. That makes him free.

I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back not to mention that you owe me your very self.

Translation: Oh, and by the way, I won't mention that you owe me a whole lot more. Well, maybe I did mention it...so that cancels whatever Onesimus owed...and you're still in debt to me.

Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

Translation: Capish? Good. I expect you to do it.

And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.

Translation: I'm going to drop by soon to make sure you did what I--ahem--"asked" you to do.

 

[Diamond7]

Do you believe only what third-parties report as the specific words of Jesus

It is pretty obvious that the Red letters are the words of Jesus. We only need the words of Jesus and the Torah from Moses. No one else adds anything, they just help explain what we learn from Moses and Jesus. David, for example, does not add to what we receive from Moses. But He helps us to understand.

 

[Diamond7]

Yes, the Mosaic Law permitted

Some people would say that Moses does not permit slavery, he gives them rights. .This was back in a time when if people were not "sold" into slavery there is a good chance they would starve to death. Women had to decide if they wanted to marry a poor man for love or a rich many for his money, so he would provide for her.

There is a saying that women need three things, a roof over their heads, food on the table, and shoes on their feet. There are women in the world today that would marry just about anyone that could provide for them above the poverty line.

Here in America, we have gold diggers and liberated women. Of course, there is always the Stockholm syndrome. I think of Patty Hearst who was kidnapped and indoctrinated by the Symbionese LIberated Army to the point where the judge found her guilty and put her in jail.

 

[Mike from NJ]

If we are to believe the Bible, where were the Hebrews when God gave them explicit instructions on how to enslave? They were in the desert having served as slaves themselves for 430 years. They had no slaves at that time and hadn't for centuries. God wasn't trying to limit slavery to his people, he was reintroducing the practice to them. So this is not akin to divorce, as even as slaves for all that time they would get married and divorced.

The excuse that God had to allow the Hebrews to practice slavery because other nations were also doing it withers when looking at Scripture. God told his people that they were NOT to adopt the practices of neighboring nations:

Leviticus 20:23 - You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.
Leviticus 18:30 - Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.’
Leviticus 18:3 - You must not follow the practices of the land of Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not follow the practices of the land of Canaan, into which I am bringing you. You must not walk in their customs.

We can see many times where God told his people specific things they were not to do that other peoples did, and specfic things they were to do that other peoples did not. What's telling is what is being prioritized. Moses was almost killed by God for waiting a bit too long to circumcise his son, but the practice of beating, breeding, and manslaughtering slaves were all things God saw no trouble with.

How can laws that give minute details on how to perform an act be considered an attempt to stop that act? If a law said it was okay for a husband to beat his wife if dinner isn't ready when you get home, or if she bought something without asking him, or that he can't beat his wife on a Sunday, is that really going to eventually lead to wifebeating to stop altogether? Not if a law could just as easily say a husband can never beat his wife (similar to laws God made that said a person could not work on the Sabbath).

When it comes to the Mosaic Law, God had his people perform certain actions that would later be replaced by the new covenant. When we look at those practices (such as animal sacrifice, or dietary restrictions) the actions themselves were not evil. The practice of slavery simply is evil. It causes undue harm unnecessarily. It's not in any way at the same level as not mixing dairy and meat.

Slavery apologists often want to look towards the words of Jesus and focus on generalities of being kind to one another to distract from what God the Father said. In life, if someone does specific actions and then says very general things that run counter to those actions, which is a better way to gauge that someone? Imagine a U.S. senator, who often offers up vague platitudes about "supporting the troops", but then does things like slash funding for VA hospitals, strip them of things they need to be safe in combat, and behind their backs mocks them. Specific actions tell a lot more than vague speech. Are we to trust the God that talks about being kind to one another, or the God that explains how some babies can be slaves at birth, says they can be beaten with a rod and even manslaughtered (so long as they die a lingering death), and who twice calls slaves property that can be passed down to next of kin like an ox or sandals?

Paul speaks of slavery as though it had an optional component. That was possible for debt bondage. It was not possible for chattel slavery. Paul could say, "Don't go into debt." Paul could not say, "Don't be kidnapped."

Any optional component was on the slaveowner's side. Paul absolutely could say "Don't purchase slaves from neighboring nations." and "Release those slaves that you've bred."

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers ;and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine -- 1 Timothy 1

Thus, the slave trade of kidnapping is made illegal within the Body of Christ. Going into debt is permitted but counseled against.

This comes from Paul, who is not God. Jesus' only words on slavery spoke about how it is right to beat a slave form something they didn't know was wrong.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. -- Ephesians 6

To a Christian who had slaves this verse is a jaw dropper. It changes everything.

Again vague and utterly empty platitudes versus the specifics of God the Father, who said if you beat a slave with a rod and that slave doesn't die the same day (which, if you've never seen some die over several days, is complete agony) that there is NO punishment because the slave is the slaveowner's property. He also said if a man's carelessness causes him to accidentally kill another man's child, the first man pays with his life. If a man's carelessness causes a man to accidentally kill another man's slave, he just has to pay a fine because their not on the same level as regular people.

If the slave owner considered the slave his personal property, this verse creates a different relationship. Both persons are actually the slaves of the Lord. That makes the "slave" no longer the property of the "master," but his responsibility under the one who is the Master of both of them--for the Master sees no existential difference between them--they are both His property, both bought for a price.

I'm sure when the slaves were chained, beaten, (for the women) forced to have relations with a man she was sold to or one of his sons, the idea of it being symbolic of being enslaved to the Lord didn't come up a whole lot.

Now, to Paul's letter to Philemon. The first question to ask: What is the purpose of this letter? Latter apologists for slavery and those who wish to accuse Christianity of condoning slavery both claim the letter is nothing more than a plea from Paul for Philemon merely to be nice to Onesimus.

Yes, because Paul had become friends with Onesimus. At no point in the letter did Paul denounce the practice of slavery, but said to Philemon how helpful Onesimus had been to Paul.

One would have to explain, though, why a mere "be nice" letter would have been cherished, preserved, copied, and shared among the early Christians and eventually considered of such significant doctrinal importance to have been included as part of the Canon.

That's assuming the letter was even real and not just a story. But assuming that it was real, we have all sorts of correspondence saved throughout history of all tones and stripes. After the U.S. Civil War, the once owner of former slave Jourdon Anderson sent a letter to Mr. Anderson asking him to come back to work on his farm. Jourdon's written response, which slyly yet politely declined the offer (and asked for back wages from when he was a slave) still exists and is in the Smithsonian. So, we can attest from actual history that letters may be saved even if the person's response declines the initial request, and even if the letter is hostile to the person who received the letter.

that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains....I am sending him who is my very heart back to you.

Translation: I consider Onesimus my own son--which is about the most important familial relationship possible in this society. Men value their sons more than they value their wives. Just want you to know how serious this is to me.

Agreed, which backs my assertion that this letter isn't a denouncement of slavery at all, but asking a favor for a friend.

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

Translation: What part of "no longer as a slave" is hard to understand? "No longer as a slave" does not mean "be nice to him as a slave." "No longer as a slave" actually means "no longer as a slave."

As I noted above, does Paul at any point say no one should be a slave? He's asking for a special favor for Onesimus.

If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.

Translation: He was a slave because of a debt he owed you (which is the only bondage we allow among Christians)--so put that debt on my tab. That makes him free.

You're assuming things not in evidence. He's saying if he is a debt slaver Paul would pay that debt. Also, where does it say that Onesimus was a Christian. He very well could have been a foreigner purchased from a neighboring nation (as God allowed). If someone were willing to twist words just as slavery apologists often do, it could be argued (albeit without evidence) that when Paul said he became a father to Onesimus that he converted him, and thus was not a Christian prior to his enslavement.

So not only is Paul not saying anything against slavery, but we need to remember that even if he were that Paul is not God.