sschlichter

Paul did not address slavery, he addressed only what kind of a slave a Christian should be. He should be one that works hard, does not grumble, even when his master is not present and should work as if he was christ's slave. This is not an endorsement of slavery, it is a reflection of the reality of slavery. St. Augustine said the same thing. Slavery is a reality that resultes from the fall of man. No man should be a slave, but yet men are slaves. Sometimes for immoral reasons, sometimes for moral or amoral but hard reasons nonetheless.

As a soldier I experienced much abuse. I did not see it as immoral because it was designed to teach me not to drop grenades so close to wear I was standing. is it immoral that I be tackled, hit, called names. It depends on the severity of the situation. I expect OT slaves and masters were in severer siuations that you and I and it is difficult to gauge what a beating consists of.

If you acknowledge that there are siuations that men can be imprisoned, then you will have to come up with a universal rule on punishment. A slap on the wrist, waterboarding, what is it?

Not causing any permanent harm sounds like a step in the right direction.

andrewcriddle

FWIW some have speculated that the bishop of Ephesus called Onesimus referred to by Ignatius was once Onesimus the runaway slave.

Andrew Criddle

Equinox

Steve wrote:

One doesn't "not address" something that matters when talking about the subject. Paul talked about slaves in general more than once, and neither he nor the holy spirity thought it worth a couple words to mention that slavery was wrong. Obviously, they didn't think slavery was wrong. The same goes for Augustine.

slavery in the old testament included selling, ownership of wives and kids (if not previous to slavery), in addition to clearly inhumane treatment being allowed. That's not the same as today's military, but it is similar to the military in some other countries and times. I doubt you had to leave any kids born to your wife while you were in the military to be permanent members of the military, right? Were you ever beaten so severly that you could not get up for 23 hours?

Questions open for Steve from before:

• So, in your view, it's OK to enslave those taken in war? That is the order of the day in Bible as well.
  
• I'm still waiting on your view of Ham's heir being named "black",
  
• Slavery in both testaments is shown to be a situation where severe beatings are fine. Do you agree?
  
• I'm also waiting on whether you agree that Paul saw slaves as property (since we appear to agree he isn't just following a law he sees as immoral),
  
• and whether or not you agree that Augustine saw the continuation of slavery as OK.

No, because none of those are as serious, and more importantly, none of them happened without your prior knowledge signing up. According to centuries of Christian Tradition as well as the Bible, slaves can be taken in war, born into slavery, and taken for debt, none of which are their willful choice.

No, it isn't difficult to gauge. It is spelled out clearly in the Bible. Any beating that does not result in death, as long as the person can get up within a day or two, is fine. We both read this bible, right?

I think "significant pain" would be a start, but that's off topic for this thread. If you'd like to start a thread on that, go ahead.


AC- Thanks for that tidbit. I hadn't heard of that.

Equinox

sugarhitman

Really? Not according to this "And it shall be, if he say unto you 'I will not go away from you BECAUSE HE LOVE YOU AND YOUR HOUSE because he is WELL WITH YOU; then you shall take an aul and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be your servant forever AND ALSO TO YOUR MAIDSERVENTS AS WELL." Deut. 15 This is not involuntary slavery nor was it to be like that of the heathens.....God desires freedom.

dog-on

Except from God, of course...

sschlichter

Jesus didn't talk about war when addressing a soldier. This does not mean it is not important, it just is not the topic. The freedom Paul discussed was not dependent on whether you were a slave or not. Your temporal siuation was not relevant - as evidnced by the fact that he was in jail while he wrote.

So, it is not the condition of servitude you object to, just the terms?


if you could supply a reference where this is condoned, I would answer your question.

I have no view on that. It is frankly, a stupid premise - no disrespect intended but I could not find a better word.

punishment is condoned. How severe is not clear to me. You are taking a passage hyper-literally to say that it is ok if the person gets up in 23 hours when it is obvious to everyone reading the passage that it is saying that the beatings are not to be severe. Obviously, we have a much gentler sense of what punishment should look like. It is naive to say that we have found the moral absolute on what punishing a child (for example) should look like. Many other modern societies would laugh at that notion especially when you can see the fruit of our society.

Paul, obviously saw the image of God in the person of Onesimus. I really do not think Paul thought it matter'd whether he was a slave or not. I belevie his view was to accept where God put you and love who is in front you (master or jailer). When everyone does that, there will be no more slaves.

I think you are not understanding that Paul did not share his views on slavery. If he had, slavery would have continued just the same.

I gave you Augustine in Augustines words. I do not see the word OK at all. He acknowledged slavery existed and is a result of sin (this is an evil, a consequence of something bad - not ok) as Noah acknowledged (which you twisted into his instituting)

How is it off topic to evaluate whether the punishment was just or not?

If you punish your kids with a painful spanking, does this constitute immoral punishment? If not, give me a hard line on when it becomes immoral for all cultures. Sounds like it is somewhere between sore for 5 minutes from spanking and 23 hours. You are in judgement of the law, so give me your universal decree. You must have one since you claim that the OT has crossed it in Exo 21.

sugarhitman

"Do not spare your son from the rod" even children were whipped. Just because beatings (whipping) were condoned does not mean that masters had a right to abuse their slaves. The fact that slaves were to be SET FREE if injuries resulted shows that masters had not this right because if they had, severe beatings or abuse that in most cases results in injury would not have justified or made legal the freeing of slaves such a law would not even had been established. Compare this to slaves in America, who had toes cut off, broken bones etc the anti runaway slave laws, who were kidnapped, held, and sold against their wills.....this is completely different from the VOLUNTARY slave system in Israel. You skeptics are comparing apples to oranges.


Also those American "christians" who tried to justify slavery by calling blacks "Caananites" were deceiving themselves because 1. Blacks are not Caananites 2. That prophecy isnt even about slavery its about Israel's future rule over the Gentiles that includes the "Caananites." Just because pseudo christians supported slavery does not mean that God does. Paul did not condone slavery, he only encouraged slaves, the oppressed to suffer evil....Just as Jesus did. You skeptics are way off.

Stephen T-B

"Just because pseudo christians supported slavery does not mean that God does." (sugarhitman)
Did they think they were "pseudo christians"?
I dare say they believed themselves to be just as much "proper" Christians as sugarhitman considers himself to be a "proper" Christian.
And the way they read the Scriptures, they believed that the Jewish god did support slavery - the sort of slaveery they were practising.
How can that be?
Because the Word of God is ambiguous in so many repects other than the commandments given to Moses - not just the Ten Commandments but the multitude of others listed in Levitus and Deuteronomy.
Here's something from Chapter 6, Leviticus, which leaves no room whatesover for misinterpration:
" 22: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
23: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.
24: And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it.
25: For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.
26: Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
27: Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people."

So, we see that in some matters, God was absolutely specific.

Yet when it comes to slavery, there are such ambiguities that for 1,800 years after the death of Christ (or thereabouts) Christians throughout Christendom believed that the versions of slavery they were practising were acceptable to their god.
Why did their god not set the record straight for 1,800 or so years if indeed slavery as it developed was something it abhorred?

Exciter

Lol, sugarhitman, no one ever mentioned Christians justified slavery by calling blacks "Caananites" in this thread except the "christian" sugarhitman....

I know this is a long thread with a lot of disscussion going on, would it help you if I posted some pictures to help you understand? [lol]

WVIncagold

so beatoing is not abuse? wow you are the compasionate one. I gues rape is assualt with a friendly weapon around your thought process. Roman slave was an example since it is the one that is most documentedand adopted through out its conquered world. condoning any type of slavery is moraly reprehensible and trying in anyway to condone it shows a support for bigotry and abuse of your fellow man. accepting the bible as a word of righteousness yet hand waving the abuse of fellow man and a god unable to utter these seven words "thou shalt not enslave your fellow man" when there are 613 ...count them 613 comandments in the babble about what people should not do. the bible condones slavery as a good thing. So if you support the bible you support slavery. its very simple. no amount of handwaving can dismiss it. your premis is that its is not condoned because there is punishment for slave owners. Give that some thought will you. Slave owners. Slave owners. Slave owners can be punished for killing their slaves. Seriously are you going to keep trying to assert that slavery is not condoned in the bible? Then why would there be punishement for a SLAVE owner. SLAVE owner. cant say it enough. Your argumnent is silly and contrived. The institution of slavery is condoned accepted and expressed very well in the babel.