Slavery - is it Biblical or not?

I strong opposite of slavery.

Right now, we are under the New Testament time. We are not under the laws like Mosaic Laws anymore. We are under the grace.

The purpose of slavery during early America history, - bussiness, and negotiations. Also, it was racism too. Wrong for white peolle kidnapped innocnet black people away from their family in Africa, brought them into slavery. It destroyed their family tradition.

I am white. I was born in Detroit. I love black people. I do have many black friends.

I consider, slavery was part of dirty business. Southern states of U.S.A. were doing their business by use black people as slavery, to produce cottage for to make clothing, shipping, etc.

Today, there are still slaves out there in the world. Thank God for America. That our country is now liberty and freedom.

I feel sorry for black people, who already suffering from their past of their family. They are full of bitter and obesses on it. But, they have to cast the past away, forgive white, what they has done to them. Even, white should tell to them, sorry and ask for forgive for being tortured them in the past.

Today, there are still hatred and racism each other.

Detroit is filled of hatred and racism. There are about 98% of population in Detroit are black people. At the turn of the 20th Century, there were about 98% population in Detroit were white. That's big changed.

I wish, white should leave black alone in Africa long time ago, so it would not have happened. Oh well. God has his purpose and will. He allowed them to be happened. Interesting, during slave period in south, many black were saved by hear the gospel from white. That was blessed. But, many white were hyprocrite. Huh?

Anyway. Slavery seems not caused America's moral value declined. I believe, they both are not forgive each other, and not get along well. Christ commands us, we ought to love one another. That is the second commandment. Today, many of us not actual love one each other.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Could you please cite his racial views? I am not aware of those.
Please remember that bearing false witness is a sin and it is listed in the 10 commandments.

I do not know a lot about Dabney but I am unaware of any racial views.

You have to remember that almost anyone who defends the southern culture is labeled as racist.
Many forget (or never knew) that there were black slave OWNERS as well.

 

"...we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race, stamped with all the feebleness of the hybrid, and incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa..."
R. L. Dabney, A Defense of Virginia (1867), pp.352-353.

 

When slavery ("owning" of a human being against his will by another human being) is examined in light of the entire Word of God it is clearly WRONG. Furthermore American slavery was racism pure and simple. They were exclusively of African descent and treated with such inhumanity that many died. It is appalling that any Christian would condone slavery in general and slavery as it was in American history in particular.

Now with that said, being an "endenturred" servant is not slavery in the same way as it was in America. As mentioned before people would be endenturred to someone else for a specific time for a specific wage or for some other compensation - but they did it willingly. Some peole today feel like thay are "slaves" to their jobs, for example.

"Owning" of human being by another human being - especially based on race - against their will is NOT supported by Scripture..

 

But is it condemned by scripture? No. Again, we have to determine this by the attainment of scriptural ideals, instead of by suppositions, such as "the Bible says we are all to be considered brothers, so the Bible condemns slavery."

Slavery, of course, is far from the only issue in which we have to consider ideals, rather than 'hard-line' do-it or don't-do-it. Polygymy would be another. The Bible does not forbid it, and a man with a special gift of wisdom had 1000 women he called wives [which can make us wonder of what value "wisdom" is]. But God originally created one woman for the one man and said, "...a man... shall cleve unto his wife (singular)..." And it is forbidden to deacons and elders in the NT. But it's not true that the Bible says "No multiple spouses for anyone."

"Separation of church and state" is another topic in which a biblical ideal is the basis, and there is no command "the church and the civil authorities must be separate." In fact, it closely parallels the acceptance of slavery in Christian dominated countries. The last overtly state-supported church in the USA had this arrangement terminated in the 1830's, when the slavery debate was getting hotter, especially in the expansion of slavery to new territories and states. And the conditions for readmittance to the 'Union' were for the formerly seceded states to accept 3 new consitutional amendments; abolishing slavery, defining citizenship, and guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws, which ultimately led to states and localities being forbidden to be arms of any religion. The verse most cited in scriptural support of church/state separation if "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are God's." To say this commands C/S separation is reading it very broadly, of course. It was said by Jesus in response to an entrapment question by the scribes. But the ideal of obeying the civil authorities, as long they do not require a violation of God's moral law, as commanded in the NT, can best be met where the state does not demand any kind of worship or religious practice-- therefore it can't require the "wrong" kind. But the gospel can thrive under any system of government; hostile, neutral, or 'friendly' to its tenets.

 

Lemme get this straight: are you saying that you WOULD mix the blood of those heroes with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, or you WOULD NOT do so?

You might be interested in knowing that the question of how to define slavery was at the root of the antebellum debate. The proslavery and antislavery forces could never agree on a definition, so no real debate was possible--just emotional wordslinging.

 

Are you all aware that there were black slave owners in the South?
There were.
Slavery is not always a racial thing but of course can be.
By the way, either black men are truly inferior (I do not believe this) or they are still not treated as equals because they are at a much lower overall economic class that whites.

As for slavery, I believe it is biblical if it is done properly.
Many men have sold themselves into slavery for economic benefit, many because they could not make it on their own.
In this way, many are still a level of slave. How many of your work for someone else?
You are selling your labor to someone else and that is not a bad thing.

The definition of slavery is helpful for debate.

I do not believe that a proper Biblical slave is actually the property of the slave master. Rather, I believe only the labor of the slave is owned by the master and certianly not his soul.

For those that have a hard time understanding how the Bible can condone slavery, please realize that the form of slavery that the Bible allows is very benevolent.

the form of slavery that the Bible allows is like if you were labor, for life was owned by General Motors and in turn you received all expenses for life, even after you could no longer work or if you were injured and couldn't work.

Seriously, we are all slaves unless we work for ourselves, it is just that for most of us it is a benevolent and temporary slavery and we don't mind it that much.

 

Slaves aren't free.

How can you possibly compare us, who choose to work somewhere, to a slave...who is owned by someone else?

Waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too much equivocation for my taste. And IMO it downplays the scourge of slavery, especially in the South, in the nineteenth century

 

I do not believe that slavery is in any way compatible with the teachings of Christ and the New Testament.

In some cases it might have been a necessary evil during Old Testament times. Also, the Old Testament writers and translators often failed to properly distinguish between indentured servancy (voluntary servitude) and slavery (involuntary servitude).

I believe if the two systems are properly distinguished, one will find that the practice of true slavery (involuntary servitude) by the Hebrews, was not nearly as prevalent in the Bible as secular critics claim.

 

I know of no scholarly debates regarding the specific issue you mention. Believers and unbelievers alike have examined the records and come to a consensus. (The literature in this area is vast.)

 

Exodus 21 covers buying a Hebrew servant. He had to serve 6 years, and could then become a free agent; just like Major League Baseball.

 

Please elaborate.

Nobody is denying that Hebrews practiced REAL slavery, primarily involving their enemies.

However, I don't believe there is any disputing that what the Old Testament translations in several places refer to as "slavery", is actually indentured servancy, which was a voluntary compact an individual entered into to pay off debt etc.

Indentured servancy (voluntary servitude) is not the same thing as slavery (involuntary servitude).

Are we in agreement on these basic points?

 

I highly recommend any of the excellent biographies of William Wilberforce, who over a period of decades, changed the conscience of the British Empire on slavery and other societal evils.
And it was because he was a Christian.

If you could ask John Newton, the former slave trader who wrote "Amazing Grace", he would tell you slavery was wrong. He, after all, was the pastor who had such influence to set Wilberforce on his course in Parliament against slavery.

 

All indentured servants wasn't voluntary. Either jail or servancy and if you recall reading about being locked up in the 16 and 1700's in England wasn't like today either.

 

what about love thy neighbor as thyself? Or do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

 

Just like there is no one verse that says "Thou shalt not commit abortion."
Yet I think the Bible is against abortion.

 

You originally wrote, one will find that the practice of true slavery (involuntary servitude) by the Hebrews, was not nearly as prevalent in the Bible as secular critics claim. My response was to that statement, which I included in a quote box at the beginning of my post. I will repeat my response: secular critics are not incorrect on this point. They and believers all agree on the kind of slavery practiced in Israel. Or, more specifically, everyone who actually reads the biblical data agrees on this point.

As for your other points, and those of other posters, I will politely excuse myself from further discussion. Without narrow definitions and rules of Bible interpretation, the topic is destined to the same fate as it had in 1830-60, and we all know how unproductive that was.