The Christian Slave Owner Contrasted With The Abolitionist

[Kent Witcher]

The slaves that Paul refered to had a good relationship with their masters and not forced.

Then why did Onesimus run away?

And..

Why did Paul tell slaves to submit to froward masters, even unbelieving masters?

 

[Kent Witcher]

"Forward"

The correct word is fRoward not forward.

I Peter 2:18

Servants, be suject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also so to the froward.

According to strongs the word used here is skolios which means warped, perverse, crooked.

Sheds a little light on the subject I believe.

 

[Kent Witcher]

The Bible has authority over the Government. This one scripture was shared in conjunction with Joseph's slavery in order to support submission to "Masters" as defined by mans Government, not by God.

But God's word also tells us to obey our respective governments.

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by Kent Witcher:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The slaves that Paul refered to had a good relationship with their masters and not forced.

Then why did Onesimus run away?

And..

Why did Paul tell slaves to submit to froward masters, even unbelieving masters? </font>[/QUOTE]I see you are in the habit of taking one scripture against the other. Have I not shared with you where Paul tells Masters to treat slaves in the same way of RESPECT, LOVE, SUBMISSIVENESS,etc?

Let read more of the situation with Onesimus:

Philem 1:15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good-- 16 no longer as a slave , but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.

Did Onesimus runaway or was he sent away?

Did he have freedom to leave the service of Philemon?

"Good Relationship" that I spoke of does not mean that they alway got along, but the conditions of slavery were defined different then, than it is now.

These were not Christian Masters who slave traded or enslaved people against their will. Unless, they owed them a debt.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Taz, you seem not to understand. Slavery existed in massive amount (19 out of 20 people in Rome were slaves). These were slaves NOT out of love but captured by Roman armies and sold to owners. Our modern sensibilities are appalled, but we cannot rewrite history.

And God gives clear instruction for how masters should treat slaves and for slaves to submit and treat their masters. Good christian masters and evil Simon Legree masters.

Can't change history or the Bible. Hope this helps.

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Taz, you seem not to understand. Slavery existed in massive amount (19 out of 20 people in Rome were slaves). These were slaves NOT out of love but captured by Roman armies and sold to owners. Our modern sensibilities are appalled, but we cannot rewrite history.

And God gives clear instruction for how masters should treat slaves and for slaves to submit and treat their masters. Good christian masters and evil Simon Legree masters.

Can't change history or the Bible. Hope this helps.

Sorry Bob, I've been out for a while.

I have a question,if you don't mind:

What defines slavery?

For example: If some one is bound hand and foot, not allowed to leave, kept against their will, made to work without pay and without any rights, could this person be a prisoner or a Slave?

May seem silly, but I'm just curious of your opinion.

 

[Tanker]

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Can't change history or the Bible. Hope this helps. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

When a mechanic fixes my car, he does not consult the bible for advice, nor would anyone expect him to do that. In a similar way, let me submit that the bible is not able to deal with all questions of morality, including the subject of slavery. If a moral question is not answered by something in the bible, then we still have a responsibility to deal with it as best we can, substituting our own notion of morality as required.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Tanker:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Can't change history or the Bible. Hope this helps. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

When a mechanic fixes my car, he does not consult the bible for advice, nor would anyone expect him to do that. In a similar way, let me submit that the bible is not able to deal with all questions of morality, including the subject of slavery. If a moral question is not answered by something in the bible, then we still have a responsibility to deal with it as best we can, substituting our own notion of morality as required.

You have got to be kidding me? Right?

The Bible cannot deal with all questions of morality?

No wonder these discussions never get anywhere!!!

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Kent Witcher:
slave owners were guilty of having slaves who were kidnapped and taken from freedom in Africa. The "no matter how he got that way," isn't found in Scripture - and a case could be made that those who were free and were stolen into slavery, as the American slaves were - had every right to revolt and reclaim their freedom.

Scott,

Yes "the no matter how he got that way applies" in that if the government says that I am a slave even if I previously had been free then I am a slave. If someone owns me even if I was kidnapped I (NOTICE I SAID I) am still responsible for being obediant to my new master per the instructions in the Bible even if he is a wicked no good dirty kidnapping rat .

I only have the right to seek my freedom if the government says I do.

In the case of the African enslavement their government legalized the capture of people for slavery and other people whose government said that they could own/ buy slaves did. Period.

Were the governments moral. Maybe so, maybe not. ( probably not ) did this change what God said. NO it did not.

So here's a question. If the gov't legalizes the capture of people for the purpose of slavery is it still kidnapping?

I think you know the answer.

I see a parallel here to the legality of abortion...

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Tanker:
...let me submit that the bible is not able to deal with all questions of morality, including the subject of slavery. If a moral question is not answered by something in the bible, then we still have a responsibility to deal with it as best we can, substituting our own notion of morality as required.

I can't be satisfied with substituting my own notion of morality, nor do I agree that the Bible does not deal with the subject of slavery. Tanker, though I strongly disagree with you, I appreciate your explanation, because it helps to understand from where you're coming.

 

[The Galatian]

Roman slavery was not all "kind and gentle."

I should say not. In some periods, there were so many slaves coming in from war that large landholders often remarked that it was cheaper to work them to death and buy new ones than to let them live.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I know churches that do the same thing - use a person until they are burned out. Then let them drop by the wayside and grab new workers.

Seen ministers treated that way, too.

God will judge.

 

[Dallasdid]

i agree with you bob