Slavery

[Lief Erikson]

This thread will start as a continuation of the discussion we were holding on the gay and lesbian thread. If it branches off into other topics about slavery, though, I have no problem with that.

I would like to respond to this article posted by Insidious Rex, since I didn't see it as getting much of a response. I may not have looked far enough, of course.

[Lief Erikson]

The use of Christian doctrine that falsely condemns homosexuality is the same doctrine that the prior generation used to condone the practice of buying and selling humans as slaves.

How does the article mean "the same doctrine"?

The Bible was used as justification for slavery, right up to the moment it was made illegal. Slavery was a common practice in the time of Jesus and earlier, yet Jesus himself said nothing about it.

The life that Jesus provides generally tends to work against it. Like Brill said in the other thread, though, how other people have used Bible scriptures doesn't necessarily speak on whether they're valid or not. For example, plenty of people have claimed that the End Times are so much time ahead, but they don't come, and the people are all disappointed. This doesn't say anything about the scriptures' validity, though. It shows that those people's interpretations were incorrect.

That's probably not the best example, but I'm sure there are others.

EX 21:20,21 God clearly says we can beat slaves to death.

Sorry, Insidious Rex, but this statement in the article actually has no truth in it.

Exodus 21:20 says "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished"

Verse 21 simply says that if the person survives the beating, then the person does not have to be punished. The general teachings of the Bible on slavery all teach mercy toward slaves, so the fact that someone can commit a severe beating doesn't go to show that this is in anyway encouraged.

Ex 21:1-6 God says if a master allows his male slave to get married and have children, then the wife and children become the master's property too. Even if the male slave should gain his freedom, the wife and the children must remain with the master. So much for family values!

The slave that is being referred to only is staying with the master six years. Can't a person wait six years?

Also, this is a wife that the master gives him. Thus, she appears to be, from the beginning, known to be a temporary gift. The slave also can keep her, if he chooses to remain in bondage when his time is served.

Ephesians 6:5 is the NT support of slavery.

It isn't in support of slavery as a practice- all it does is acknowledge slavery's existence and encourages the slaves to good behavior. This is something that is certainly to be recommended, I think.

It's rather similar to the draft, in that respect. It wouldn't be saying yes or no to whether the draft should exist, but is saying that soldiers who are in it should behave well and follow orders.

Also according to Jewish culture at the time a women was supposed to marry her rapist! Think what following that requirement would do to a women raped today!

Christians claimed Leviticus 25 supports servitude of up to 49 years.

It does.

[Lief Erikson]

Although it was the Christians, not the Jews, who used the Bible to defend slavery.

How other people have used the Bible in the past does not change what the Bible says. You should look at the scripture, rather than at how people have used it, if you want to find out what it means.

Montesquieu was considered a heretic for opposing slavery, and his works were condemned. One of the most infamous slave trading ships (that of Hawkins) was called the Jesus. Slavery was viewed as the will of God, and slaves were taught Christianity in order that they might recognize that "truth" and realize and accept that slavery was the natural order of things, sanctioned by the Bible itself. A minister writing in 1860 (in "Slavery, Its Institution and Origin" said: "So we see that God not only instituted slavery but He also made it to forever be a part of the moral probation of the human race, and to be a great lesson to the end of time of his abhorrence of sin." Just over 100 years ago in this country, people who considered themselves model Christians honestly and completely believed that slavery was morally right and opposing slavery was the real sin.

The South - the so called "Bible Belt" appealed to the Bible to justify slavery. Remember that the Southern Baptist church got its start in the 1840's precisely over the issue of slavery. Preachers quoted Eph 6:5 to support slavery then, just as vigorously as Jerry Falwell misquotes Romans 1 to condemn homosexuality. But there's nothing unbiblical about slavery. Like everyone else of his time, Paul regarded slavery as a normal part of society. In Paul's time there was no understanding of loving homosexuality, only the terrible acts of pederasty - hetero males degrading other hetero males sexually. The Bible doesn't change but society understanding does.

Today 2000 years later, we no longer practice pederasty or slavery. I hope soon, ant-gay sermons will be as dated as pro-slavery or anti-race mixing sermons are today.

None of this is a good argument against the Bible's stance, but it shows how people have used the Bible.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm going to repeat, here, one of my main posts on this subject. It hasn't yet been answered, and if it's going to be, it had best be done here.


Slavery is a tough issue to define. I also would state that it has an even longer record than it might seem. Monarchies are one form of slavery, for example. Monarchies were a form of government that very broadly existed until very recently. They were one of the forms of government that worked best. Rejecting slavery could be seen as rejecting this form of government. But not only this form of government, completely, either. I will continue in this vein later.


Slavery is basically a strong restriction on freedom, correct?

This kind of definition poses many difficulties. For example, even in democracies there are restrictions on people's freedom. Plenty of laws are passed that plenty of people disagree with. Those laws still apply to those people, though. Laws do restrict people's freedoms. We have less laws controlling us now, and because of democracies, we have a stronger ability to choose what they are than exists in a situation with slavery. However, even in a democracy our freedom is restricted.

Much of this restriction, and many of these laws, are clearly for our own good. Some are displeasing to us, though, and probably some would be better repealed.

Slavery is basically a far more restrictive group of laws. However, just as the above mentioned laws, in governments, can be for their people's own good, so slavery can also in some circumstances be for the people's own good. For examples of how slaves have actually liked slavery, sometimes in the past, see the Civil War. Slaves fought on the side of the South in that war, as well as the North.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written in "Pictorial Bible Dictionary"
Slaves among the Hebrews were more kindly treated than slaves among other nations, since the Mosaic Law laid down rules governing their treatment. They could gain freedom in a number of ways. Slavery continued in NT times, but the love of Christ seemed to militate against its continued existence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people who became destitute offered that themselves become slaves. If slavery was illegal, many of these people would have starved and died.


So let's see . . . there are a lot of points I've made here, I know. Slavery is basically a more restrictive set of laws. We have laws over ourselves now, and we can be viewed as under a much weaker form of slavery. The slavery in the past seems to have been stronger, though in Israel it was less terrible than in the surrounding nations. Slavery also can be beneficial for the people who are slaves. Therefore, refusing to have slavery, putting rejection of slavery as a necessary moral, does not seem like it would have been a wise thing to do. It would have been difficult to define, and could have been used as a reason for all kinds of rebellion in the future.

However, as has been pointed out by RÃ*an and in the part I quoted from the Bible dictionary, the presence and love of Christ frequently causes slavery to become abolished. The Quakers are a good example of this.

[Lief Erikson]

Jerseydevil, in this same section that Insidious Rex's article alluded to, I found a statement that rather contradicts what you said about slaves being regarded as less than human in the Biblical times.

It also speaks against mistreatment of slaves.

Ephesians 6:15
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.

By saying that there is no favoritism between master and slave, it shows in pretty clear terms that they are both looked upon as equals in the sight of God.

[zinnite]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
...Slavery is basically a strong restriction on freedom, correct?

I would say slavery is an absolute denial of one's freedoms. You do make the point there are many forms of slavery (some literal, some more esoteric), where some forms are more-or-less restrictive than others; I think what is/was being discussed (before the new thread started) was limited primarily to human bondage for the purposes of labor.

...Slavery is basically a far more restrictive group of laws. However, just as the above mentioned laws, in governments, can be for their people's own good, so slavery can also in some circumstances be for the people's own good. For examples of how slaves have actually liked slavery, sometimes in the past, see the Civil War. Slaves fought on the side of the South in that war, as well as the North. ...

My "expertise" regarding slavery is primarily limited to the institution as it existed in the United States, so I want to focus on your example...

It is true that many former slaves considered themselves better off before emancipation; they had guaranteed shelter and food from their masters (in most cases it was barely enough to survive, but it was still a given). And because they were considered private property and the sole source of labor, they also had certain protections (a severely injured slave did not work--but also keep in mind that slave owners made an art out of inflicting frequent and severe punishment just short of causing debilitating injuries).

So while they might have thought they had it better as slaves (and looking at the many oral histories and memoirs available, that was hardly a ubiquitous sentiment), it is a rare circumstance a slave actually liked their situation. They knew they were in bondage; they knew about the freedoms enjoyed by blacks in the North (such as they were). They were also haunted by the constant fears of being sold "down the river" (which was essentially a death sentence) and having their families broken up, among others. Slaves didn't so much like slavery as they coped with and played the system. Most accounts of slaves enjoying their servitude come from the slave owners as a defense of slavery.

And there were slaves in the Confederate army, but rarely did they fight; mostly they were relegated to do the dirty work whites didn't want to do, primarily to free up more white men to do the actual fighting. Remember, and this is not exaggeration--the greatest nightmare of any white antebellum southerner was a black man with a firearm (images of Nat Turner and Denmark Vessey), and even in the most desperate moments of the war they were incredibly loathe to hand over weapons to their slaves. The slaves involved in the CSA war effort were forced to be involved; unlike blacks in the Federal army, they were generally not too enthusiastic that their side should prevail.

I know this a specifically targeted (and long-winded) response to a small part of your post, but I imagine there are others who can respond to the more philosophical points you bring up. As far as the Biblical references--I'm not a Christian and haven't read the Bible in a long, long time, so out of respect for others and to save embarrassment I won't go near those

[Rían]

Hey, Lief, you might want to post a link to this thread - I didn't realize you started it until after I posted a response on the other thread.

And that quoting of Ephesians in the original article was really ridiculous, since the verse about masters being good to slaves was immediately after the verses they quoted. Talk about lifting out of context!

A very poorly-written article, IMHO. One wonders if they even bothered to look up the verses themselves.

[gdl96]

My position on slavery is that I'm against it.

I just wanted to make that clear.

[GrayMouser]

Wll, since our creationism thread is about gay marriage and our homosexuality thread is about Biblical slavery, I think I'll do some posting about pet rats here....

One thing to note about the laws on slavery from Exodus and Leviticus- most of the ones dealing with length and terms of bondage covered only Hebrews, i.e. fellow tribal members.

Leviticus 25

39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

On the whole, though, it certainly seems that the Israelites treated their slaves with more justice than most ancient peoples.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Wll, since our creationism thread is about gay marriage and our homosexuality thread is about Biblical slavery, I think I'll do some posting about pet rats here....

Don't forget the religious discussion thread that is at the moment discussing Dark Jedi.

[GrayMouser]

On the general issue, though, jd is absolutely right. The Old Testament, as we see, contained many passages that, while moderating slavery, also sanctioned it.

And the same thing applies in the New Testament.

Paul had the time and energy to condemn homosexuality; one would think that he could just as easily spoken a word against slavery. Look at the letter to Philemon; Paul practically pleads with him to free his slave Onesimus, but never quite dares to put it in words. How simple just to have said "Free this man , because in Christ there is neither slave or master; all are brothers and sisters, therefore a Christian cannot own slaves."

Easy, simple- but he didn't say it. To my way of thinking, owning, buying , and selling another human being is worse than consensual homosexual relations- but the authors of the Bible disagree.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Don't forget the religious discussion thread that is at the moment discussing Dark Jedi.

Spammer!

[Ruinel]

REPOSTED FROM "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals" thread.


RÃ*an and JD, back when the bible was written by men, slavery was a common thing. People owned other people and counted them as their property and wealth. The bible condones the owning of human beings because it was written by men who understood slavery as the norm in their society. Why the hell would someone write a book that condemned a common practice among the people who would read it? Can you imagine the uproar if the men who wrote the bible told everyone who owned slaves to set them all free? I can guarantee for one thing, that the bible would not have survived to today if they had.

And RÃ*an, I think I understand JD's frustration. You agree that slavery is bad, yet the bible, the book you are defending, allows and accepts slavery as a nonoffensive and nonpunishable practice. Really, can't you see that the bible is flawed?

[Valandil]

Objective: to be thorough, yet succinct and clear
Outlook: hazy... at best

Ruinel, JD... you don't REALLY expect Rian - or me - to make that kind of admission about the Bible, do you? As a cornerstone of the faith, we Christians tend to give the Bible every benefit of the doubt we can. I don't KNOW why the Bible does not outright condemn slavery - and agree it would be nice if it did. I agree that it was written by men - but then the question comes in of whether these men were inspired by God in their writing. The Christian will think so - the atheist will not.

I can try to GUESS at why the Bible doesn't condemn slavery - but I doubt that would satisfy you. One possible guess (DISCLAIMER: guess only!) is that even in His written word, God gives an ideal, but allows for something less. The only other example of this that comes to mind now is when Jesus tells the people of his day that; yes, Moses allowed their ancestors to divorce their wives, because their hearts were hard, but that was not the way it was intended to be from the beginning. (see - now we can morph the "slavery" thread into a discussion of divorce! ) I could be WAY OFF though. To get a more satisfactory answer, you may want to approach an evangelical theologian - who accepts the Bible as true, and who is a bit better versed in it than I am.

Please understand a couple other things about the Bible. For one, on many matters, it doesn't come out and say; "this is true, this is not / this is right, this is wrong." - it does on SOME things, but not all. We try to apply the principles from what it DOES tell us, to cover other issues we encounter. Second, the Bible (and God) is much more concerned with the spiritual than the physical. That doesn't mean to take care of the spiritual and that the physical doesn't matter at all - but one has priority over another. God would rather I be free - but He would also rather I be a slave who loves and serves Him than a freeman who neither loves nor serves Him - again, Christian perspective.

And... on the matter of perspectives, what teaches you that slavery is wrong? Your conscience? Teachings of our day? Those standards have proven quite flimsy down through the ages of history. As I stated in the other thread, Abolitionism was a profoundly Christian movement.

Don't really expect to change anybody's mind this way... I thought I could when in my teens and twenties, but I know better now. Maybe I can at least promote a little more understanding though. Had intended to refrain a bit from some of these debating threads, but when I saw the Bible under attack (and I still think it's unwarranted to outright say the Bible condones slavery) - I couldn't help myself... and may still be unable to stay out of the fray if it happens again.

[Ruinel]

The Abolishion movement also had its extremely violent periods also. Including outright murder... by the Christians.

[Valandil]

Ruinel,

Murder by Christians... totally misguided. I cover that in the other thread as well. See my response to I-Rex about John Brown.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
Ruinel, JD... you don't REALLY expect Rian - or me - to make that kind of admission about the Bible, do you? As a cornerstone of the faith, we Christians tend to give the Bible every benefit of the doubt we can.

Hence my feelings that many people blindly follow the bible without thinking. Would you give a KKK member a benefit of the doubt? Or a white supremecist leader the benefit of the doubt? Why are you giving the bible the benefit of the doubt when it comes to it condoning slavery? The reason is because you feel the bible can NOT be wrong because then it puts the whole foundation of your belief into question. This is also why I feel that too many ultr-religious people act like lemmings - following something without thinking.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

The bible is flawed. Only a fundamentalist Christian would disagree with that. The bible was written by human beings, maybe men (but how do we really know that only men wrote the bible? I know that I certainly was not there), and it can not be used to define social theory, scientific or historical fact. Scripture reflects the human communities from which it arose. These communities included, men, women, Jews, Gentiles, statesmen, philosophers, freemen, slaves, etc., etc., all properly acting according the very human social and cultural mores of their time. Scriptures reflect the reality of the times in which they were written. As such the Scriptures are a valuable tool in evaluating the cultural anthropology of the historical communities from which they arose.

However, the primary emphasis of Scripture is not human reality. The Scriptures tell us of divine reality, and not necessarily in connection to the human limitations of the historical circumstances surrounding the human cultures they reflect. It is the Christian’s purpose to reduce the truths about the divine from the mythology of Scripture. If all you have to work with are the Scriptures, then admittedly it becomes very difficult to separate the limitations of its human reflections from what Scripture indicates about the divine. All too often it boils down to personal opinion.

Is there slavery in the bible? Well, yes, of course there is, because slavery was part of the cultures reflected by the Scriptures. Does this mean that what the Scriptures say about the divine is illegitimate? There's no way to make that kind of connection. These are two distinct realities we are dealing with: the human limitations of Judeo-Christian mythology, and what this Judeo-Christian mythology tells us about God. Does the presence of these human limitations bring into question the divine inspiration for this mythology? No. God does not dictate laws from above, but speak to men and women of every culture and generation... this is exactly why the inspired Word of God is presented as a mythology... because only mythology has the power to transcend time and place and become applicable to all people of all times and places.

[Valandil]

JD, I think you're just posting without really paying attention to what you're reading. Seems there's no way I can insulate my posts from your misinterpretation - when you're bound and determined to mininterpret / mis-state / over-state them

From G-le-M's post, you can even see that there is a wide view WITHIN Christianity of how the Bible is to be taken. But that's a whole 'nuther thread. I wasn't going to touch on it myself - but there it is. To REALLY understand all that... debating on a thread won't come close! It will literally take years of studying scripture, theology, church history - and then some. Cheers

[Gwaimir Windgem]

To my way of thinking, owning, buying , and selling another human being is worse than consensual homosexual relations-

Of course. The really strong reason for the wrongness of the latter is intensely theological, and naturally, the atheist doesn't consider that when determining what he thinks is right or wrong, as he doesn't believe in it.

To get a more satisfactory answer, you may want to approach an evangelical theologian - who accepts the Bible as true, and who is a bit better versed in it than I am.

Or rather, any theologian who accepts the Bible as true.

The Abolishion movement also had its extremely violent periods also. Including outright murder... by the Christians.

You'll use anything to get Christians, won't you?

this is exactly why the inspired Word of God is presented as a mythology... because only mythology has the power to transcend time and place and become applicable to all people of all times and places.

Amen! Though as I don't consider mythology and myth to be necessarily false, we're probably thinking of different things.