All Hail Uncle Tom!

[Tim]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but didn't most slavery in Roman times originate from one of three sources:

1. Roman conquest of another nation (political slavery)

2. Debt slavery (financial slavery)

3. Willing slavery

Yet, American slavery originated from raiding villages and stealing people to sell for profit. Perhaps we could call that kidnapping. Does one who buys a kidnapped person then legitimately become his "master"?

BTW, I've never been known to be PC.

Tim

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Tim:
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but didn't most slavery in Roman times originate from one of three sources:

1. Roman conquest of another nation (political slavery)

2. Debt slavery (financial slavery)

3. Willing slavery

Yet, American slavery originated from raiding villages and stealing people to sell for profit. Perhaps we could call that kidnapping. Does one who buys a kidnapped person then legitimately become his "master"?

BTW, I've never been known to be PC.

Tim

Now, Tim - you know that the pro-slavery people aren't going to listen to reasonable facts! You wasted your time posting this...

(Of course, I liked it!)

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Scott,

You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that Roman slavery and American slavery differed in some great degree. Even if you could prove that, it wouldn't change the fact that the Lord commanded slaves to obey their masters. This command was not qualified by the circumstances of the slavery.

Tim tries to make a difference between "political slavery" - one nation conquering another - and "kidnapping." You act as if he has thereby proven something. Well, perhaps you'd care to explain the moral difference between one nation conquering another nation and making slaves of it's men and one nation conquering a single village and making slaves of it's men?

I'm not even saying it is morally right to do this. All I am saying is that the Lord commanded all who were under the legal status of a slave to obey their masters. You have failed to prove American slaves were not obligated to obey this injunction from on high.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

RIGHT HERE is a link to a study of the sources of Roman Slaves. It lists political conquest, piracy, kidnapping, child abandonment, child selling, self-selling, debt, punishment for crime, and, of course, birth as a slave. The writer concludes that birth in slavery was the most important source of Roman slaves followed by abandoned children.

It was in this historical context that Paul wrote these words:

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.

These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

Mark Osgatharp

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
It lists political conquest,

2%-3%, according to the source

piracy, kidnapping,

Both of which were prohibited at the time of Paul's writing.

child selling,

Author admits that there is scant evidence, but merely makes presumption. EVen if it were to exist, author says that the practice was quite rare.

self-selling, debt,

This is where the majority of the slaves came from, according to the source I provided - and this is willful slavery.

punishment for crime,

Again, as the other penalty was death, one should suppose this to be better than the alternative.

and, of course, birth as a slave.

And these people were given the freedom to marry, have children, and have somewhat of a normal life. Quite different from what we see in pre-Civil War America, huh?

Thanks for the link. It helps to show just how different servanthood and slavery were.

It was in this historical context that Paul wrote these words:

Exactly! It was IN THIS HISTORICAL CONTEXT! Does this mean you are starting to come around?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
[QB] Scott,

You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that Roman slavery and American slavery differed in some great degree. Even if you could prove that, it wouldn't change the fact that the Lord commanded slaves to obey their masters. This command was not qualified by the circumstances of the slavery.

He commanded bondservants to obey their masters. Bondservants are different than pre-Civil War slaves.

Let's place it this way. A woman is married to a husband who beats her mercilessly. She's still legally married to him, although he hsa several mistresses. He comes home every night after "dallying" with his mistresses, and again beats the snot out of her. She comes to you for advice. Do you tell her to continue to submit to her husband's authority?

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Scott,

You say that self-selling was the major source of slaves and yet the article I gave says that birth was the primary source followed by child abandonment. This shows the futility of trying to prove something by extra-biblical writings which don't even agree among themselves.

By the way, I like how you just ignored the part about child abandonment being the second most important source of Roman slaves. LOL! I guess this didn't fit your little revisionist theory.

All your arugment is futile anyway, because if you could prove that every single Roman slave was a well treated indentured servant and that every single American slave was yanked out of an African village and sold into bondage and grossly mistreated, it would not change the fact that the Lord commanded all slaves to:

"be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully."

Do you get it Scott? Can you hear the word of the Lord? Even if a slave SUFFERS WRONGFULLY he is still to be subjet to his master. Therefore all your arugment, at very best, is but a dung heap.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Jailminister]

Mark, I admire your spunk for bringing up this subject. I do believe that slave selling and slave owning is wrong in the way it was done here and continues in many parts of the world today. Most of the times the reference type of slaves in the bible were those who placed themselves under a master voluntarily. They needed food or they got in debted to the master in some way. What happened in the country is that tribes in Africa took over other tribes and sold them to slave traders who brought them here. I see no where that is was voluntary. That scriptures makes sense that a slave(biblical)should respect and obey there master, because they were obligated to them. That is one of the reasons for the Year of Jubilee. There was no Year of Jubliee for the slaves in this country. By the way there were white slaves that worked besides the black slaves and they did not volunteer either. This type of slavery is still going on today and needs to be stopped. Slavery should never be a race issue, it should be a Human Rights issue.

 

[ScottEmerson]

I am withdrawing from this discussion after you reminded me about the Christian commandment to withdraw from perversities of truth. That you would use Christianity to say that the pre-Civil War slaves should have remained quiet is abuot as perverse as one gets.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Thanks, Mark, for standing for the Bible. Revisionist liberals and Harriet Beecher Stowish abolitionists notwithstanding, slavery was, is and will be a fact of life.

And trying to say that the antebellum South was "worse" or even "different" than Rome is a paragon of absurd logic.

It is NOT a subject we talk about and, like the sovereignty of God, is not easy to deal with in our pc society.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Thanks, Mark, for standing for the Bible. Revisionist liberals and Harriet Beecher Stowish abolitionists notwithstanding, slavery was, is and will be a fact of life.

So is prostitution, as the world's oldest profession. "Facts of life" don't make things right...or even tolerable.

And trying to say that the antebellum South was "worse" or even "different" than Rome is a paragon of absurd logic.

It's been shown several times just how different the two were.

It is NOT a subject we talk about and, like the sovereignty of God, is not easy to deal with in our pc society.

It's not about being PC. It's about following the command to love our neighbor as ourselves.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I am withdrawing from this discussion after you reminded me about the Christian commandment to withdraw from perversities of truth. That you would use Christianity to say that the pre-Civil War slaves should have remained quiet is abuot as perverse as one gets.

Sorry. I believed you.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I am withdrawing from this discussion after you reminded me about the Christian commandment to withdraw from perversities of truth. That you would use Christianity to say that the pre-Civil War slaves should have remained quiet is abuot as perverse as one gets.

Sorry. I believed you. </font>[/QUOTE]That was geared towards Mark. "This discussion" meant the ongoing and futile discussion with him.