Slavery

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Anybody stop to think that slavery was different in Biblical times than in the early days of America?

Slaves were taken as the result of war, OR sold themselves into slavery to pay of debts or gain experience in a field -- perhaps even to travel.

In specific cases, slaves were also released in the Jubilee year. )Leviticus 25:39-41)

Slavery in the US was racial in nature, and the result of kidnapping rather than of war. Apples and oranges, as you can see.

Click to expand...

There were white slaves too, they were called indentured servants. True it wasn't for a life time, but it was still slavery. There were free blacks too, therefore to say it was racial isn't entirely true.

By the way, Paul was dealing with gentiles and slavery, not Jews. Therefore the reference to the Jubilee year doesn't really have relevance.

As to the divorce issue,

I stand corrected, but God does hate divorce. No where in the Bible does God say that He hates slavery.

[ June 03, 2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Tuor ]

I do not believe the West was not at fault nor do I think our ancestors were as godly as we often potray them. There never has been a Christian nation and never will be on this fallen earth. I do accept that the west did evil things in Africa...

Click to expand...

Great, because so many ignore that, and that's why it's so ironic for them to speak of liberal "revisionists". Both sides tend to focus on their cause and ignore the other side. I don't think the liberals are denying African evil, but that is not the point to them. I think alot of it is the fact that it's the West that is in power, and the Africans who are largely downtrodden. What their real mistake is is expecting people to have a sense of obligation to them. We are individualistic, and fell that it's every man for himself in the present. The liberals are idealistic.

There were white slaves too, they were called indentured servants. True it wasn't for a life time, but it was still slavery. There were free blacks too, therefore to say it was racial isn't entirely true.

Click to expand...

Originally, the slavery of the blacks was indentured servanthood, and in this scheme there both white slaves and free blacks who owned slaves. But then somewhere along the lines it devolved into a strictly anti-black racist agenda. Some blacks may have been able to retain their freedom, but the majority of the south was harshly hostile to them (look at the N word, the Klan, lynchings, later segregation). It seemed to be the whole lifeblood of their society.

Eric, I'm not sure that African slavery ever had the character of indentured servitude. Indentured servants became so by some legal process; either the servant agreed to a term of servitude -- for debt, for example -- or was sentenced to it by a court. There was a fixed term, and the servant retained some legal rights, even if they were only notional.

African slavery was chattel -- from the same root as cattle -- slavery, in which the slave became another piece of property with no legal rights. This was upheld in the Dred Scott decision, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that slaves were no more than property and thus were not "human."

On one hand, it must be remembered that until recent times -- the past 200 years or so -- that the vast majority of people in Western Europe were slaves of one sort or another. Serfs, while not chattel slaves, lived with many restrictions. Merchants and artisans were accountable to the nobles, who were in turn servants of the monarchy.
(In Russia, serfdom and slavery were so close that in some cases there was little difference. And in Russia, nobles until the 19th century were liable to themselves to knouting and execution without trial.)

The African slavery that became established in America was the successor of the slavery established by the Spaniards. African slavery was resorted to because the Spaniards had so decimated the Native Americans that a new source of slaves was needed.

On the other hand, both are a blot on Christendom that are not easily erased. American slavery, despite its defenders, cannot have said to conform to Paul's injunctions about slavery. Mutilation, forced family separation and rape are not what Paul had in mind when he refused to contest slavery. He assumed that Christian masters would heed his call to treat fellow Christians as people for whom Christ died -- which is not how Americans treated their black slaves.

Eric, I'm not sure that African slavery ever had the character of indentured servitude. Indentured servants became so by some legal process; either the servant agreed to a term of servitude -- for debt, for example -- or was sentenced to it by a court. There was a fixed term, and the servant retained some legal rights, even if they were only notional.
African slavery was chattel -- from the same root as cattle -- slavery, in which the slave became another piece of property with no legal rights. This was upheld in the Dred Scott decision, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that slaves were no more than property and thus were not "human."

Click to expand...

I was always taught in school that it started out as indentured, then gradually became chattel. I forgot the exact sequence of how it progressed, but perhaps it was after the Spaniards you speak of saw that the Indians couldn't last as slaves that they then decided to go after the Africans. Perhaps indentured was the English colonists' original system, and it was the Spaniards' way is what won out.
Your last point is the truth that needs to be emphasized.

Be that as it may...

My point was that Paul was dealing with slavery in the gentile world. Paul did not instruct gentiles to give up their slaves, they were just to treat them better.

Was God just trying to placate the society of the time and not call salvery evil because of the society? Or does God not consider slavery in itself evil?

Does God get the 'love thy neighbor' principle?

God dispises action in which humans take others into beasts of burden. However, God calls for all to be faithful servants, even slaves to their masters. Being in a bad situation does not give one the right to act badly. Note that God never instructed the Hebrews to rise up against Pharaoh. God took care of that.

Martin Luther King is a good example. He saw a law that was immoral. Rather than rise up against the government, he civilly disobeyed. In other words, he broke an immoral law, and accepted the punishment freely. Eventually, the realization that those laws were immoral became a realization to all. He was a faithful servant to the law, not because he broke the law, but he accepted responsibility for breaking the law.

God told Abraham that his(Abraham's) people will turn away from Him(God) and will be led into slavery. Centuries later Moses comes along and frees the Hebrew people. It broke God's heart to do it but He dealt severely with Pharoah. Its interesting that God sometimes allowed His people to be led into slavery--but when the appointed time came--He always dealt severely with the captors.

As for the slave issue in the USA--Well, here in Mississippi some folks still like to fly the Stars and Bars. But if the history books are read correctly--the last flag that General Lee waved in General Grant's face--was white!

God dispises action in which humans take others into beasts of burden.

Click to expand...

Exactly where does the Bible say this? If God hates it, then why would He ever be apart of it?