WVIncagold

The word slave originated from the slavic people who were not slaves in the ME to my knowledge at the time of the OT was written. so bad analogy. They also didnt speak kings english in the ME during that time. but they were wel versed in the custom of bondage. Your master owned your ass. pure and simple. There is no form of nice slavery. Hell thats the entire premise of the myth of the exodus because freedom from bondage is that important to the human spirit. indentured servant slave whatever you wish to sanitize and call it it is slavery as we know it. It wasn't some nicey nice institution when people whistled and said masser either. It is deplorable that any person today would defend such a deplorable intitution and shows a real lack of morality. Slavery is deplorable. And i am using the word as it means today.

sschlichter

If you were owned pure and simple, then why were their laws that punished for abuse and freed slaves when they were harmed? How could you abuse what you owned pure and simple?

WVIncagold

Because they had value as any live stock has value. In the Roman world there was even a hierachy of slaves a house slave could mistreat (example rape) the field slaves. You obviosly have no concept of what it is like to be a slave. Try doind some time in prison, then you can understand full well what it means for people to own your ass. sorry any condoning of slavery in any form is deplorable and shows lack of morals. and the argument of it was cultural. Jewish culture revolved around what? and of the 613 comandments found in the bible Yahoo didn't once say in his best kings english "thou shalt not enslave your fellow man" 7 easy words. apparently he was more concerned about masterbation and the eating of shellfish then the ethical treatment of is creation.

Equinox

SHM wrote:

Christians often say that some OT laws are nullified based on the new testament. Specifically, the argument usually goes, if a law is affirmed in the new testament, then it’s affirmed for us. If it is not mentioned, it’s most often tossed out (though not always depending on their point). It a law is expressly violated or done away with (such as Jesus’ teaching on divorce), then the OT law is nullified.

Now, let’s look at the runaway slave law. The OT law in Dt 23 does appear to require giving sanctuary to runaway slaves. What about the NT?

In Philemon 1, this issue specifically comes up when a runaway slave (Onesimus) comes to Paul. What does Paul do? He returns him to his owner, because Paul sees a slave as owned property. To his credit he at least attempts to convince his owner to set him free, even threatening that because Paul brought Christianity to the owner, the owner owes him something. But, Paul never says “Scripture says that our God says that runaway slaves are free”. Instead Paul shows that he too considers slaves to be property, and thus the decision for freedom is simply up to the slave owner.

So it seems that the OT rule on runaway slaves is nullified by the new testament.

Equinox

sschlichter

If a slave is merely property then why the laws that are imposed on the master to prevent abuse? If what you say is true, why wouldn't the master be able to do whatever he wants with the slave? liek he can with his livestock?

Are you sure the Roman world is relevant when interpretting OT law?

sschlichter

Pual was not living in OT Isreal, he was in the Roman Empire where the laws on returning slaves was different. You are confusing the law (how to run a country) with matters of personal faith. He encouraged him to set him free because it is best that people are free, however, he respected the rights of the owner as defined in Roman law.

Equinox

So Christians are to obey laws even if they are immoral or contrary to human rights? In the US south during slavery, it was illegal to help a slave become free. Chrisians were not to help slaves become free?

sschlichter

No, of course not. Howver, you do not know why Onesimus was a servant and whether it is immoral or not, do you?

Here are some clues as to why.

(Phi 1:13) I wanted to keep him so that he could serve me in your place during my imprisonment for the sake of the gospel.

Onesimus was in prison. Why?

(Phi 1:18) Now if he has defrauded you of anything or owes you anything, charge what he owes to me.

Onesimus may have owed some debt. Did he steal?

Your assumption that all forms of servitude are immoral is ludicrous. Your inability to see other forms of servitude is keeping you from interpretting the law correctly.

Equinox

Based on Christian teaching and scripture, Thomas Aquinas laid out the conditions under which people can be enslaved by Christians. These are:

1. Slaves can be captured in war.
2. Slaves can be debtors who cannot pay.
3. Slaves can be enslaved as punishment for crime.
4. Slaves can be kept if they are born to slaves (the children of slaves are slaves).

Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther all affirmed that slavery was OK. It's been OK in Christendom from the ascension of Christianity to an empire-wide state religion until it fell into disfavor due to Enlightenment ideals in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I find slavery to be immoral based on basic human rights, which first became established as norms of behavior due to the European Enlightenment. I find enslavement for any of these causes to be unjust. You pointed out that Onesimus may be enslaved for reasons 2 or 3. Are you saying that slavery for debt or slavery for crime is morally acceptable? Please state that if so.

We don't know what actually happened to Onesimus. He may have been brutally beaten for running away. He may have been mutilated, and kept as a slave to his dying day. Any of these would have been consistent with the Bible (as long as he was able to get up within a day or two), and consistent with Jesus's words, when Jesus described in Luke the severe beating of a slave, without any condemnation of either slavery or of slave beating.

Equinox

sschlichter

St Augustine,

It is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word 'slave' in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature.

Augustine saw slavery as an evil introduced by the sin of man. he in no way condoned it, he acknowledged that it is a reality. he was a Bishop, not a King. Surely, you agree there are reasons why a person should lose their right to freedom. Should a child molester be free or should he be imprisoned. If he can be imprisoned, can he be forced to work - is he then not a slave? Is that not just? Now replace the government with a feudal system and see what the same justice will look like.

~Steve