Slavery

[Luke2427]

Yes.


The way slavery was practiced in the Americas is definitely contrary to the teachings of Christ.

In general, slavery (that is, "ownership" of another human being) is wrong. Indentured servitude, which is sometimes called slavery, is not necessarily sinful, but probably not the best thing to do.

Why is it wrong to own another human being?

 

[Luke2427]

This is a mischaracterization, not of their teaching, but of the biblical use of the Greek doulos as well as the Hebrew `ebed, both of which often get translated "slave" but which mean something more akin to "indentured servant." Those called "slaves" in both the Old and the New Testaments were contracted to their so-called masters, and at least as long as Israel actually practiced the Jubilee every seven years -- in which slaves were set free and mortgaged lands were returned to their owners without penalty -- no one was obligated to remain as so-called "slave.

Philemon, to whom you refer, was under spiritual obligation to Paul. It is highly unlikely he would ignore the advice of the man who led him to Christ.

No, it condones indentured servitude, and expected Israel to continue to recognize the Jubliee years designed to return everything to the way it was at the beginning of the seven-year period.

Wrong. God does not condone the buying selling, bartering or other abuse of a fellow human being that in any way treats that person as chattel.

Regardless of how they got placed in the hands of slavetraders, the sin laid in the wrongful ownership of a human life.

Yet it fails to acknowledge that ownership is a sin, because the poster apparently doesn't understand the nature of the aforementioned Hebrew and Greek words.

[/quopte]Good of you to acknowledge this, as it is absolutely true. However, you should take another look at the biblical application of what we have unfortunately translated as "slave", "slaves", and "slavery."

For the seven years that an "indentured servant" was obligated to his Jewish master- what was the diffeence between him being an indentured servant and a "slave"?

 

[DrJamesAch]

No.



Not if done right.

So do tell how it can be done right, and how it was done right by FORCING people at the end of whip and gun to servitude, and splitting families apart? If God said what He hath joined together let not man put asunder, then what justified slave owners splitting apart married couples? On what basis do you use any Biblical process to determine how you select those slaves?

Indentured servants were completely different from forced slavery. Yet even indentured servitude was abused where the debts in which the servant supposedly owned was manipulated to justify legal compliance.

 

[Luke2427]

So do tell how it can be done right, and how it was done right by FORCING people at the end of whip and gun to servitude, and splitting families apart? If God said what He hath joined together let not man put asunder, then what justified slave owners splitting apart married couples? On what basis do you use any Biblical process to determine how you select those slaves?

Are you not familiar with the numerous passages of Scripture in both Old and New Testaments that show how slavery is to be done right?

Do I need to show them to you, seriously?

 

[DrJamesAch]

Are you not familiar with the numerous passages of Scripture in both Old and New Testaments that show how slavery is to be done right?

Do I need to show them to you, seriously?

1) We are not UNDER the OT law. If we were, there would be GENTILES being proselytized to Israel under VOLUNTARY servitude or was imposed as the spoils of war. Hardly the same as that which has been practiced by America and other nations.

And in the NT, I have already explained Philemon previously on here. There are no NT passages that you can use to justify forced slavery, that goes against the very principles of freedom that Christ is trying to teach the church. (And don't go quoting "but we are slaves to Christ". Hardly the same thing and you know it.)

 

[agedman]

So do tell how it can be done right, and how it was done right by FORCING people at the end of whip and gun to servitude, and splitting families apart? If God said what He hath joined together let not man put asunder, then what justified slave owners splitting apart married couples? On what basis do you use any Biblical process to determine how you select those slaves?

Indentured servants were completely different from forced slavery. Yet even indentured servitude was abused where the debts in which the servant supposedly owned was manipulated to justify legal compliance.

My, haven't you bought into the typical liberal media spiel of mistreatment of all slaves.

Here is a bit of historical facts that you might have missed about slavery in America

Historically the vast majority of slaves in the new world colonies were treated better than the indentured servant.

For instance, would a slave owner risk a high dollar field hand, in which breeding would bring increased help, good health would realize the return on investment, and decent food and shelter would protect from harm? Would he risk that kind of investment to clear a field of stumps by blowing them out of the dirt with kegs of dynamite, lit by a short fuse? Would he risk that kind of investment on a person who if they became sick or lame would mean the lose of investment? Would he risk infection and heat stroke from mistreatment and withholding sustenance so that the investment would be placed in jeopardy?

Or would it be wiser to use a person who the next year or so was going to have to set free and given land, tools, and other items obliged by a contract of servitude?

If the death broke the contract of servitude, there was far less money at risk. The life of the indentured servant was expendable and more easily replaced.

One must also consider the indoor slave versus the field hand (they didn't necessarily get along). Most indoor slaves had a very close relationship with the owner(s) and most were trusted with a great deal of the oversight. Rarely would an indentured servant be given such a privilege.

Slavery in the American colonies was almost eliminated until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Until then the farms were generally small and owners usually worked along side the field slaves and shared just about everything. There were many blacks that owned slaves.

Granted when "king cotton" drove the economy, the triangular trade route took on a whole new measure of greed and swindle. The testimony of John Newton is an example of the ungodly character of that time.

One final point on treatment of slaves. I am not ignoring that evil men and women did not do evil. However, there is a rather interesting account of how slaves and master got along before the Eli Whitney cotton gin.

Thomas Jefferson had a slave girl who traveled with him to France. While in France, she and others in the group had every right to leave Jefferson, but, of her own choice, she chose to stay with him, have his babies, and live with him as a slave and caretaker of the house. Upon his death, her children were given freedom and she was established in a home in the town for the rest of her life.

Very little is actually known about this girl (she was 15 when she went with the rest of the travelers that accompanied Jefferson to France), but she was never mistreated, and no person in Jefferson's family or friendship was ever allowed to speak evil of her.


Again, history changed when economics changed.

That is the same as the Hebrews in Egypt. When the Egyptians felt economically threatened because there were more Hebrews than Egyptians, slavery became ugly.

 

[DrJamesAch]

My, haven't you bought into the typical liberal media spiel of mistreatment of all slaves.

Here is a bit of historical facts that you might have missed about slavery in America

Historically the vast majority of slaves in the new world colonies were treated better than the indentured servant.

For instance, would a slave owner risk a high dollar field hand, in which breeding would bring increased help, good health would realize the return on investment, and decent food and shelter would protect from harm? Would he risk that kind of investment to clear a field of stumps by blowing them out of the dirt with kegs of dynamite, lit by a short fuse? Would he risk that kind of investment on a person who if they became sick or lame would mean the lose of investment? Would he risk infection and heat stroke from mistreatment and withholding sustenance so that the investment would be placed in jeopardy?

Or would it be wiser to use a person who the next year or so was going to have to set free and given land, tools, and other items obliged by a contract of servitude?

If the death broke the contract of servitude, there was far less money at risk. The life of the indentured servant was expendable and more easily replaced.

One must also consider the indoor slave versus the field hand (they didn't necessarily get along). Most indoor slaves had a very close relationship with the owner(s) and most were trusted with a great deal of the oversight. Rarely would an indentured servant be given such a privilege.

Slavery in the American colonies was almost eliminated until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Until then the farms were generally small and owners usually worked along side the field slaves and shared just about everything. There were many blacks that owned slaves.

Granted when "king cotton" drove the economy, the triangular trade route took on a whole new measure of greed and swindle. The testimony of John Newton is an example of the ungodly character of that time.

One final point on treatment of slaves. I am not ignoring that evil men and women did not do evil. However, there is a rather interesting account of how slaves and master got along before the Eli Whitney cotton gin.

Thomas Jefferson had a slave girl who traveled with him to France. While in France, she and others in the group had every right to leave Jefferson, but, of her own choice, she chose to stay with him, have his babies, and live with him as a slave and caretaker of the house. Upon his death, her children were given freedom and she was established in a home in the town for the rest of her life.

Very little is actually known about this girl (she was 15 when she went with the rest of the travelers that accompanied Jefferson to France), but she was never mistreated, and no person in Jefferson's family or friendship was ever allowed to speak evil of her.


Again, history changed when economics changed.

That is the same as the Hebrews in Egypt. When the Egyptians felt economically threatened because there were more Hebrews than Egyptians, slavery became ugly.

Liberal media view? I don't even have a television let alone watch one. Most of the news that I do watch says very little about America. If I see something interesting about America, it comes from the forums I am on, which not even this one would support liberal media.

Now on to your excuses. I asked above for Luke to show me the New Testament support for the selection of slaves and the justification of forced slavery, and the justification for splitting apart married couples. None of this "they were treated better" garbage because you don't know that.

Cultures have different things that they are comfortable with that you might believe is archaic and primitive because you think in Western cultural terms.
Thus all of your humanist reasoning does not give the evidence for the Biblical method of how slaves are selected, the New Testament justification for forced slavery, and the justification for the separation of married couples and their families. Give me Scripture don't give me excuses.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Now you want to talk about the OTHER side of the issue, this is the kind of crap where the blacks are JUST as wrong.

http://www.infowars.com/filmmaker-beaten-by-trayvon-martin-protesters-in-oakland/

Black teens murder white baby

White Couple Rape and Murdered by 4 Blacks

Black Panther party threatens race war.

 

[Luke2427]

1) We are not UNDER the OT law.

Says who?

The moral law of God never changes. It applies to us as much today as it did in Moses day.

Ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ.

Civil law was always just for Israel.

But the moral law of God (no other gods before me, thou shalt not commit adultery) is alive and well.

If we were, there would be GENTILES being proselytized to Israel under VOLUNTARY servitude or was imposed as the spoils of war. Hardly the same as that which has been practiced by America and other nations.

Explain how it is different.

What if a Southern slave owner was very good to his slaves and offered them freedom after seven years of service?

Would you have a problem with that?

And in the NT, I have already explained Philemon previously on here. There are no NT passages that you can use to justify forced slavery,

Sure there are. Where do you think Israel GOT their slaves?

that goes against the very principles of freedom that Christ is trying to teach the church.

Why? Because you say it does?

How does it go against these principles?

Which principles? Spell them out.

(And don't go quoting "but we are slaves to Christ". Hardly the same thing and you know it.)

It is the utter ESSENCE of the same thing.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Says who?

The moral law of God never changes. It applies to us as much today as it did in Moses day.

Ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ.

Civil law was always just for Israel.

But the moral law of God (no other gods before me, thou shalt not commit adultery) is alive and well.



Explain how it is different.

What if a Southern slave owner was very good to his slaves and offered them freedom after seven years of service?

Would you have a problem with that?



Sure there are. Where do you think Israel GOT their slaves?



Why? Because you say it does?

How does it go against these principles?

Which principles? Spell them out.



It is the utter ESSENCE of the same thing.

First of all, the BIBLE says we are not under the law.

Secondly, show me in the MORAL law where slavery is justified? You can't justify slavery based on the law which was contained in CIVIL laws, and then concede that it is the MORAL code that is binding. If the civil law is what contained the rules for "slavery", and you concede that the civil law is not binding, then you can't switch slavery from the civil law to the moral code to justify it's practice. That is an enormous categorical error.

And if a slave was treated well and promised freedom that makes it ok? What if I took your wife and kids from you but promised you I'd give you a million dollars for your troubles? Based on your logic, kidnapping should not be against the law.

Furthermore, I never say anything about someone I would not be willing to say to their face. If you believe that you are right, then you should be able to stand on that principle next time there's an all-black gathering somewhere.

 

[Luke2427]

First of all, the BIBLE says we are not under the law.

The Bible says that we are not under the law "for righteousness."

We are not made righteous by law keeping but by Christ.

Sin is still "transgression of the law."

Secondly, show me in the MORAL law where slavery is justified?

Show me in the moral law where it is condemned.

You can't justify slavery based on the law which was contained in CIVIL laws, and then concede that it is the MORAL code that is binding.

I was not saying that keeping slavery was in the moral law. I was just saying that your statement about law being done away with is a gross oversimplification.

If the civil law is what contained the rules for "slavery", and you concede that the civil law is not binding, then you can't switch slavery from the civil law to the moral code to justify it's practice. That is an enormous categorical error.

It being in the civil law given by God at LEAST meant that God was okay with it for Israel.

Therefore, unless God came in some time later in the Bible and said it was sin, we have no reason to think that God frowns upon it.

The only reason you frown upon it is because it makes you feel good to be against mean old slavery.

It is NOT because you have Bible for it.

e was treated well and promised freedom that makes it ok? What if I took your wife and kids from you but promised you I'd give you a million dollars for your troubles? Based on your logic, kidnapping should not be against the law.

Governments can do these things- not individuals.

Governments can employ the death penalty-not individuals.

Governments can declare war- not individuals.

If a nation conquers America and takes us into slavery and treats us well and lets us go free in seven years then there is no sin involved.

Furthermore, I never say anything about someone I would not be willing to say to their face. If you believe that you are right, then you should be able to stand on that principle next time there's an all-black gathering somewhere.

Why does THAT matter?

Am I supposed to be afraid of blacks?

Furthermore, wise people understand life requires context.

What you do and say in one place is not always appropriate to do and say in another.

That's why you don't sleep with your wife in church service.

That's why you talk about things to your wife that you don't talk about to your kids.

It is kind of stupid, frankly, to say that if you say anything anywhere you ought to say it everywhere.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

Show me in the moral law where it is condemned.

Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal. You are wanting someones service that does not want to give it you. You are wanting someone's children and wives to do your work for you when they are not willing to do so. In Israel the service was VOLUNTARY. In Africa it was not.

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:9-10

I was not saying that keeping slavery was in the moral law. I was just saying that your statement about law being done away with is a gross oversimplification.

I was responding to your oversimplification that slavery was justified by the law.

It being in the civil law given by God at LEAST meant that God was okay with it for Israel.

Therefore, unless God came in some time later in the Bible and said it was sin, we have no reason to think that God frowns upon it.

The only reason you frown upon it is because it makes you feel good to be against mean old slavery.

It is NOT because you have Bible for it.



Governments can do these things- not individuals.

Governments can employ the death penalty-not individuals.

Governments can declare war- not individuals.

If a nation conquers America and takes us into slavery and treats us well and lets us go free in seven years then there is no sin involved.

The difference is servitude in Israel and the slavery practiced by the US is totally different. Israel did not travel to nations and arbitrarily start collecting slaves against their will to do all their work. WORK by the sweat of man's brow is one of the consequences of sin, and those who stole and kidnapped slaves in Afrika did so because they were lazy tyrannical oligarchs. The slave owners separated families, took sons and daughters from mothers and fathers, took husbands away from wives AGAINST THEIR WILL, and you say that is justified? It's KIDNAPPING ("menstealing" 1 Tim 1:10).

Where was the 'war' in Afrika that justified America or England stealing men?

Why does THAT matter?

Am I supposed to be afraid of blacks?

Furthermore, wise people understand life requires context.

What you do and say in one place is not always appropriate to do and say in another.

That's why you don't sleep with your wife in church service.

That's why you talk about things to your wife that you don't talk about to your kids.

It is kind of stupid, frankly, to say that if you say anything anywhere you ought to say it everywhere

Sleeping with the wife in church does't match the same kind of context. A public place where you are entitled to speak in a context and event designed for speaking should provide no obstacle for sharing that kind of an opinion at a rally full of blacks. Whites don't speak as publicly about their belief in slavery today then they did before 1860. Why not? If that is truly what you believe, like I said, then there should be problem maintaining that idea if a crowd of blacks asked you if you support slavery. If you can't say it everywhere, then it isn't a real belief. Real beliefs stand up to the consequences of stating them. Did not the South fight for slavery because they believed it? Well what happened to that belief now? If they believed it and fought for it, then by all means, go make your case.

 

[DHK]

Here is an excellent article about slavery in our day:

http://www.worthynews.com/top/washi...i-i-saw-hell-refugees-are-easy-prey-for-bru-/

 

[Luke2427]

Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal. You are wanting someones service that does not want to give it you. You are wanting someone's children and wives to do your work for you when they are not willing to do so. In Israel the service was VOLUNTARY. In Africa it was not.

Show me in the Bible where it purports that slaves owned by Israelites were VOLUNTARYU slaves BEFORE the seven years of servitude were up.

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:9-10

And?

God's standards for righteousness for EVERY SINGLE UNREDEEMED PERSON ON EARTH is the Law. Whoever does not do EVERYTHING in the law is guilty of breaking the whole thing.

That is not true for the redeemed. Christ has fulfilled that standard for righteousness before God. But even the redeemed still sin and sin, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT is DEFINED as "transgression of the law."

Breaking the law for a Christian does not bring the wrath of God on him because the wrath of God for the redeemed was burned out on Calvary.

But the UNREDEEMED are still held to the standard of the law for righteousness and every law they break "stores up wrath against the day of wrath."

The law of God is still a part of the Christians life- it is simply no longer the standard by which he will be judged.

I was responding to your oversimplification that slavery was justified by the law.

The difference is servitude in Israel and the slavery practiced by the US is totally different. Israel did not travel to nations and arbitrarily start collecting slaves against their will to do all their work.

Prove that they did not do this.

WORK by the sweat of man's brow is one of the consequences of sin, and those who stole and kidnapped slaves in Afrika did so because they were lazy tyrannical oligarchs.

Prove it.

Sleeping with the wife in church does't match the same kind of context. A public place where you are entitled to speak in a context and event designed for speaking should provide no obstacle for sharing that kind of an opinion at a rally full of blacks.

I would say it at a black rally.

I am only saying that it is stupid to say that everything you say in one context you should also say in all other contexts.

If you can't say it everywhere, then it isn't a real belief.

You see, I think that is idiotic.

The Bible says, "The FOOL utters all his mind..."