Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 05-15-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Midge

Was Paul Writing to the masters? How could he address such an issue to them.

Midge, nowhere does the NT say to masters that it was unacceptable to own slaves. The implications of that are very clear.

Quote:

I have never heard or Tercel and don't see what relevance they have to this discussion.

Tercel and I had a discussion about slavery, which I put in a link to on the first page of this discussion. It pretty much demonstrates how wrong the NT view is.

Quote:

Nor is the passage from Luke relevant to the discussion about slavery simply because Jesus was not talking about the rights and wrongs of enforced labour. He was using the imagery of servants (NIV) to describe the attitude his disciples should have to working for the Kingdom that is not to expect glory for them selves simply for doing what they should.

Yes, but that was a perfect time to denounce the whole practice of slavery. And note that the image is considered "normal." That's the problem we have, Midge. Slavery is considered the usual practice, and is not condemned.

Quote:

Please remember that the NT was written at a time when the early Church was but a finge movement in a religion of a subjugated religion and had no onterest in mainstream Roman Society and culture.

What does this have to do with right and wrong? Isn't that objective, in your view? Isn't slavery always wrong? If so, why isn't it condemned?

Quote:

Yet Paul points out that Onesimus is now a fellow believer and should be treated accordingly. "Welcome him as you would me" pleads Paul and later adds "Confident in your obedience, I write to you knowing you will do more than I ask".

Does Paul unequivocally state: "Free your slave"?

Quote:

Paul does not order that Onesimus be freed because he has no right to interfere with the prevading law.

The law specifically allowed for masters to free slaves. By recommending that, Paul would not be in violation of the law.

Quote:

one of the leaders. By the very fact that this private leter survived would suggest that Philemon took it to heart.

Frankly, I doubt Philemon is about slavery. But it is important that given the opportunity -- a clear opportunity! -- Paul refrains from instructing Philemon to free the slave. Instead, he just tells him not to beat him.

Quote:

So Paul entrusts that the principles of the Kingdom of God prevail over Roman legal rights. This demonstrates that slavery is not fitting for the fellowship of Christ that is the Church and submission to the law. A diplomatic solution to the issue suitable for the time.

There is no contradiction between Roman legal rights and Paul's position. Roman legal right said a master could punish or not punish a slave, as he pleased. It was not illegal for Philemon to forego punishing his slave!

Quote:

Anyone who leads in the Christian community should put others first- that principle woud obviously extend to their slaves.

If others were really put first, there would be no slaves.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie · 05-15-2004, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinAce

You'd change your tune if you owned a cute female slave or two and they refused your advances, Vinnie. Just make sure not to knock out any teeth or eyes of theirs, or you'd have to let them go free.

Just give them a choice: this rod or this rod!

beastmaster · 05-15-2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Midge, nowhere does the NT say to masters that it was unacceptable to own slaves.

What about Mat 19:16-30? There, Jesus tells the rich man that, in order to love thy neighbor in accord with the Commandments, one must sell all one's possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. This practically shouts out that the good Christian is to liberate his slaves.

Vorkosigan · 05-15-2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastmaster

What about Mat 19:16-30? There, Jesus tells the rich man that, in order to love thy neighbor in accord with the Commandments, one must sell all one's possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. This practically shouts out that the good Christian is to liberate his slaves.

Where is the condemnation of slavery as such?

Vorkosigan

beastmaster · 05-15-2004, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Where is the condemnation of slavery as such?

Earlier you said that the NT "authorized slavery." I presented a passage that appears inconsistent with the conclusion that Christians are "authorized" to keep slaves.

I did not claim that Jesus is said to have condemned slavery in so many words. Nor is it necessary to do so in order to demonstrate that Christianity does not "authorize slavery."

In any event, I am not hostile to your position. I agree that Christianity does disappoint in failing to give clear moral guidance in accord with humanism. It would have been nice if Christianity had outright condemned slavery.

But its failure to do so does not make it "evil," in my book. Christianity has a very complex attitude about slavery. It appears that the fundamental message of Christianity w/r/t slavery is that (1) everybody is in some sense a slave, and (2) to be the lowest slave on earth is to be the highest in the eyes of God. That sort of message ain't my cup o' tea, but I think it's a non-evil viewpoint.

Answerer · 05-15-2004, 10:44 PM

Apparently, the bible had always wanted everyone to be the slave of God. :boohoo:

The slave practice had been long existed since the ancient times, even before the compilation of the NT or (even) OT. Since bible, as a work, was considerably influenced by the other religions and cultures in the Middle East at that time. I, therefore, don't think its strange for anyone to find bits and pieces of tolerating or accepting slavery inside its content. So why is there fuss about Bible condemning slavery from the very beginning?

Besides, from what I recalled, Roman Empire (from its birth to its end) had lots of slaves. Oh well, another double standard...........

shunyadragon · 05-15-2004, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Midge

It is easy to judge another time and culture with our own values. Slavery was a fact of life in those days. An honest question: Was there an ancient civilisation that did not have some form of slavery at some point in it's rise and development? Even Britain and America had slaves. In someways the Hebrew Laws, even the fact that there were laws at all, were positively enlightened for their time. In other cultures there was no protection for the slave at all. Give credit where it is due.

As for Hebrew Slavery laws: They dealt with a fact of life in just the same ways as our laws deal with car ownership and use. One day a future civilisation may look back at us a think "What an evil and corrupt society- they allowed such indiscriminate use of the internal combustion engine that polluted and devastated the world we now live in" yet there exist those of a green disposition who oppose or wish to limit the use of cars. Oh the benefit of hind site.

In Christ, we are taught,
and it is such passages that inspired the Christians who lead the anti slavery movements.

Another aspect of slavery is that Hebrew slaves were more often prisoners or war (no Genever Convention in those days) or would be more properly refered to as bond servants. Those who had fallen on hard times and had sold themselves into service. It is a form of social security and limited in duration. There are further laws which required the 'owner' of the bond servent to set them up with enuogh so they can start a new life and not end up straight back on skid row. (Dueteronomy 15:12-18)

It is easy to accept slavery in the past the world over. Of course it was part of history. But the Bible and the Koran are different in three ways.

(1) Slavery is endorsed by God and regulated by God's Law's in both the OT and NT. This is not so in some other religions like Buddhism and Taoism.

(2) The large scale commercial market for slavery present in the west was not a part of other cultures.

(3) Both Christianity and Islam consider there law and scripture to relavent to today's spirtiual and moral needs. Neither Christianity or Islam provided a unified voice to end slavery when the time came to do so and the world modernized. They failed to provide guidance and laws that mandate their followers to end slavery. It is interesting that Jews do not take the Torah and other Hebrew scriptures as seriously as Christians take the Bible. Jews gave up slavery before Christianity and Islam. In fact except for certain dietary and ritual laws, much of scripture is ignored by modern Jews.

Vorkosigan · 05-16-2004, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastmaster

Earlier you said that the NT "authorized slavery." I presented a passage that appears inconsistent with the conclusion that Christians are "authorized" to keep slaves.

OK...

Quote:

I did not claim that Jesus is said to have condemned slavery in so many words. Nor is it necessary to do so in order to demonstrate that Christianity does not "authorize slavery."

But if Paul sends his slave back to Philemon, that is clear evidence that Christianity indeed authorizes slavery. It accepts master-slave relations as normal (Jesus refers to them numerous times) and does not object to them. Nowhere is it stated that being a holder of slaves is a moral wrong; on the contrary, slaves are specifically prohibited from revolt.

Quote:

It appears that the fundamental message of Christianity w/r/t slavery is that (1) everybody is in some sense a slave, and (2) to be the lowest slave on earth is to be the highest in the eyes of God. That sort of message ain't my cup o' tea, but I think it's a non-evil viewpoint.

I don't.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 05-16-2004, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastmaster

What about Mat 19:16-30? There, Jesus tells the rich man that, in order to love thy neighbor in accord with the Commandments, one must sell all one's possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. This practically shouts out that the good Christian is to liberate his slaves.

Only if you read it through modern anti-slavery eyes.

If Jesus had meant to tell the rich man to free his slaves, he could have said so directly and unambiguously. As it is, we don't know that this rich man owns slave, or Jesus might have meant for the rich man to sell his slaves and give the money to the poor.

[The poor in this case might not have referred to poverty stricken people. The early church was referred to at times as "the poor".]

Vorkosigan · 05-16-2004, 02:24 AM

Quote:

What about Mat 19:16-30? There, Jesus tells the rich man that, in order to love thy neighbor in accord with the Commandments, one must sell all one's possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. This practically shouts out that the good Christian is to liberate his slaves.

I should have added, that if the rich man is expected to SELL his slaves, rather than LIBERATE them, he must sell them to someone else -- clearly another slave owner. Thus, the institution of slavery is authorized by this passage.

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2004, 10:44 PM	#46
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Apparently, the bible had always wanted everyone to be the slave of God. :boohoo: The slave practice had been long existed since the ancient times, even before the compilation of the NT or (even) OT. Since bible, as a work, was considerably influenced by the other religions and cultures in the Middle East at that time. I, therefore, don't think its strange for anyone to find bits and pieces of tolerating or accepting slavery inside its content. So why is there fuss about Bible condemning slavery from the very beginning? Besides, from what I recalled, Roman Empire (from its birth to its end) had lots of slaves. Oh well, another double standard...........

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.