Would YOU be a Slaveholder?

[Dale]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
>>>>>>Slavery CAN be abused but that doesn't mean that the institution is wrong.<<<<<<<<

Dale, do you really think that slavery is morally right?

As a general question, do you think that the bible is the ONLY source of morality? If something was seemingly approved in the bible, does that automatically make it right today?

Yes I do believe that the Bible is the ONLY source for morality...are you a Baptist? You should be if you are on this board and the first of the Baptist Distinctives (at least in the order they were tought to me) is that the Bible is the FINAL authority for everything. I believe this.

Please, show me from the Bible where slavery is Biblically prohibited.
Slavery is usually a result of sin however and as a people return to God, slavery tends to loosen and vice versa.
I have seen on almost every post the assumtion that slavery is immoral yet I have seen no proof of that from the Bible.

I am not trying to start a fight here, I am trying to do two things, first of all, if I am wrong please show me because I want to know the truth and I am not afraid to admit if I am wrong.
Secondly I would like to challege everyone to go back to the Bible and see if they have really been following it in this issue or if they have just been going along with what is politically correct.

So, please show me from the Bible that it is wrong, not that the abuse is wrong, but the institution.
I agree that there is abusive slavery but...you get my point.

Thanks,

Dale

 

[Stratiotes]

Whenever we study history we find that God is the primary actor in all events of history. The lesson so often lost in observing the history of slavery at anytime in history is the lesson that a people which refuses to acknowledge the authority of God often find themselves sold into slavery. The ultimate lesson of slavery therefore is not whether or not owning slaves is in and of itself an evil but that we must be a people that acknowledges God or we risk becoming a nation of slaves.

 

[Dale]

Originally posted by Stratiotes:
Whenever we study history we find that God is the primary actor in all events of history. The lesson so often lost in observing the history of slavery at anytime in history is the lesson that a people which refuses to acknowledge the authority of God often find themselves sold into slavery. The ultimate lesson of slavery therefore is not whether or not owning slaves is in and of itself an evil but that we must be a people that acknowledges God or we risk becoming a nation of slaves.

I could not agree more. I think we would also find that we are losing many of our freedoms here in the US these days too due to the moral decline in our country. Welfare etc. are just a form of slavery that is the result of sin.

So again, as the slaves in the south heard the gospel and many were converted, it changed things and slavery was dying in the south. It is too bad it wasn't allows to take about 10 more years to die of natural causes rather than to take the lives of 2 percent of the population of the states. Just think, today that would equal about 6 million people.

 

[Stratiotes]

By the way, some have mentioned the Jim Crow laws - what a lot of people do not know is that they were, for the most part, a 20th century invention and not a holdover from the old south. When the liberal "progressive" Woodrow Wilson took office, he made his racist views quite apparent with regard to govt employment. Prior to Wilson's administration even some liberal historians have acknowledged that the goals of reconstruction were farther along than they were in the mid-20th century and a lot of the progress was due to the efforts of southerners. That progress was reversed with Wilson. Wilson was a southerner, of course - but his racist policies were not something he brought from southern experience as is evident by the anti-black riots that swept the entire country in the summer of 1919. Jim Crow laws existed in a few southern states and in many northern cities but it was Wislon who made them national and so strengthened what was on the decline. The KKK was practically gone as well and had a resugence about the same time with a movie - "Birth of a Nation" - which, by the way, Wilson and many others gave high praise and used as justification for their race-baiting.

As is so often the case, it was a centralized federal authority that brought the greatest tyranny - not the local actions of some section of the country.

[ January 04, 2005, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Stratiotes ]

 

[Stratiotes]

Just wanted to add too - I think it is significant to mention another progressive liberal southern democrat (LBJ) who helped reverse the Wilson trend in federalized racism. Certainly, there is a great deal for which we can fault LBJ or Wilson but I cannot fault southerners or liberals or southern baptists or any other group as more responsible for racism than another.

 

[Dale]

Originally posted by rsr:
Please, Don.

"It takes a lot of hard work to own a plantation with slaves."

Yes, someone else's hard work.

"Remember that if at the end of a year, there was not enough supplies to go around, the master still had to take care of the slave BEFORE himself, just as today, employees must get paid BEFORE the owner takes out his."

Can you give an example of a slave owner who skimped so his slaves could eat? It certainly wasn't the law; if he did so, it was out of self interest.

No, the Bible nowhere condemns slavery. But I doubt the Hebrews were involved in chattel slavery as Americans were. Hebrew slaves have much more protection under the Mosaic Law than black slaves had in America.

I was merely stating what the responsibility of the slave owner is. It is irrelavant to my point weather or not it actually happened because that doesn't change what the right thing to do would be.

 

[Dale]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
>>>>>>Slavery CAN be abused but that doesn't mean that the institution is wrong.<<<<<<<<

Dale, do you really think that slavery is morally right?

As a general question, do you think that the bible is the ONLY source of morality? If something was seemingly approved in the bible, does that automatically make it right today?

Does it really matter what I think? It doesn't because the Bible does not say that it is morally wrong so who I am to say differently?

To believe in another "source of morality" is to believe in plural gods. God alone can decide right and wrong and he does not change with the whim of modern society.
If slavery had it's place in the book of Genesis, then God has not changed his mind on the matter today.

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>Please, show me from the Bible where slavery is Biblically prohibited. <<<<<<

I know of no specific prohibition, but I think a good case can be made that the morality of the Golden Rule and many other parts of the bible are not at all consistent with slavery.

I agree with Lincoln who said that if slavery is not wrong, then NOTHING is wrong.

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>>>>To believe in another "source of morality" is to believe in plural gods. God alone can decide right and wrong and he does not change with the whim of modern society. If slavery had it's place in the book of Genesis, then God has not changed his mind on the matter today.<<<<<

Times change and there are ethical problems today which are not mentioned in the Bible. For instance is getting a degree from a diploma mill ethical or not? The bible certainly does not say. Is abortion a moral action or not? The Bible does not say. Is Capitol punishment contrary to the Bible when one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill"? There are lots of ethical and moral problems for which there are no easy answers in the Bible - or at least no answers which are clear enough to be generally accepted.

 

[Dale]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
>>>>Please, show me from the Bible where slavery is Biblically prohibited. <<<<<<

I know of no specific prohibition, but I think a good case can be made that the morality of the Golden Rule and many other parts of the bible are not at all consistent with slavery.

I agree with Lincoln who said that if slavery is not wrong, then NOTHING is wrong.

What about cases when a man sold himself into slavery? Besides, as long and a master didn't abuse his power, being a slave didn'r have to be all that bad

 

[Dale]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
>>>>>>>>>To believe in another "source of morality" is to believe in plural gods. God alone can decide right and wrong and he does not change with the whim of modern society. If slavery had it's place in the book of Genesis, then God has not changed his mind on the matter today.<<<<<

Times change and there are ethical problems today which are not mentioned in the Bible. For instance is getting a degree from a diploma mill ethical or not? The bible certainly does not say. Is abortion a moral action or not? The Bible does not say. Is Capitol punishment contrary to the Bible when one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill"? There are lots of ethical and moral problems for which there are no easy answers in the Bible - or at least no answers which are clear enough to be generally accepted.

Is. 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Ok, to asnwer more specifically, no there isn't anything morally wrong with a "degree mill" if God has not said that it is wrong. Common sense will tell you that some schools will gain you more respect than others but there is no moral problem there.
As for capital punishment:
Gen. 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Pretty clear!

Ok I agree that the Bible is a book of principle and not of rules as we would think of. If it is wrong though today it must violate a Biblical principle.

Slavery just doesn't do that, in fact, servants are told to obey their masters....which implies that God doesn't condem it.

BTW, I am not saying I LIKE the idea of slavery. But there is a time and a purpose for it. And it is generally a result of sin...just like what happened to Israel.

 

[Benfranklin403]

Dale,

Would you please comment on whether or not slavery is consistent with: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

[Dale]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
Dale,

Would you please comment on whether or not slavery is consistent with: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

First of all, where is that found in the Bible ( I know the idea of loving you neighbor is there)

But if that is the critera, what about "Gen. 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Is that doing to them as you want them to do to you? The fact is that sin results in slavery and that is something that the Bible does not condem.

The problem is that your final source for authority is something other than the Bible.

I can't discuss with you if we don't have the same basis for what we believe.
Either the Bible is our FINAL authority or we can pick and choose what we want to obey.
Please asnwer that and then I can go on with you, if the Bible is to be the basis for this discussion then I would be happy to discuss this with you, otherwise, I am afriad that there isn't much that we will agree on if we don't aggree on that.

Thanks,

Dale

 

[av1611jim]

I think he was looking for this;
Mt 7:12
¶ Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Benfranklin403]

Dale, as a Christian I am surprised that you don't recognize the central theme of Christianity. And it is not me saying that but Christ himself. Here is what he said in Matthew 7:12:

"Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets."

Now there is no doubt that Christ intended for this to be taken as a very important and central part of his teachings. It is certainly a noble ideal. Not only is this in the bible, but it is from Christ himself. Do you accept this teaching or not? If you accept it, how can you reconcile slavery with it?

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>>>>>>BTW, I am not saying I LIKE the idea of slavery. But there is a time and a purpose for it. And it is generally a result of sin...just like what happened to Israel.<<<<<<<<

Whose sin produced slavery in America? Were the slaves responsible for their condition?

 

[Dale]

The slaves were sold into slavery by other africans, they weren't put into slavery by Americans. (there may be an exception to this but I don't know about that) Also, I am not trying to defend particular instances of slavery, I am just trying to make a point that when done properly, it is not unBiblical.

Ok, again, I have never excused the abuse of slavery but it seems that there are two different things that we are arguing here, I do not believe that a slave should be mistreated by the master and the master should treat the slave just as he would would like to be treated in the same situation. The master should feed the slave well. The master should provide good housing for the slave. The master should supply good clothes for the slave and the list goes on and on. In short, slavery is NOT free labor. It is actually a very worry free way of life if it is done properly...BTW.....I think the fact that we have been led to believe that it is always something evil is why we don't understand when the Bible talks of a "servant of Jesus Christ"
Is God unloving as our master? No He isn't. He is the great and Holy master.
I know see what you are getting at and I think that is where your problem lies, you are so used to the idea of "Uncle Tom's" cabin that you don't realize what slavery really is. What I am defending is one man owning the labor of another man in the exchange for the total care of that man. This is what the Bible allows. The Bible does NOT allow one man to take the labor of one man and not repay him in some form or fashion. We have this kind of thing all over today. The difference is that isn't isn't lifetime. There are many instances where a man doesn't own the product of his labor. He has agreed to trade his labor for whatever the contract setup requires.

I have read that a common form of slavery during the colonial period of North America was when a young man wanted to come to the new world but couldn't afford it he would become the slave of a wealthy business man for a certain period of time. The master of course owned the labor of that man for that period of time...anything he produced belonged to the master and that was agreed to by both parties.

Fast forward to the present. A few years ago I watched a movie about the early days of the computer industry and I thought it was interesting that Steve Wosniak who was an employee (which is IMO a very benevolent form of slavery) of Hewlett Packard couldn't market any inventions he made while he was employed there, why? Because under the contract, he did not OWN his labor, HP did. Now does that make HP a terrible place to work? Probably not. In Exchange HP had to pay whatever the contract required and I am sure that there were medical benefits as well but I am not sure to what extent.

Of course you may argue that this is all voluntary and that would be correct and that the topic at hand is involuntary.
The simple fact is, I am not a big fan of involuntary labor, however, the bottom line is that the Bible simply does not prohibit that and since it doesn't, I can't eithe. At that point, you have to take up your complaint with God or show me where I am wrong from the Bible which until this point you have failed to do.

 

[LadyEagle]

Okay, I'll confess.

It would be nice to be a slave holder for at least one day. I would want them to fan me all day and feed me grapes.

 

[LadyEagle]

Well, good grief, didn't mean to kill this thread!

 

[DHK]

The Hon. John B. Alley was made the bearer to the President of a petition for pardon of a person confined in the Newburyport jail for being engaged in the slave trade. The petition was accompanied by a letter to Mr. Alley in which the prisoner acknowledged his guilt and the justice of his sentence. He was very penitent -- at least on paper -- and had received the full measure of his punishment, so far as related to the term of imprisonment; but he was still held because he could not pay his fine.
The President (Lincoln), when he had himself read the petition, said: "My friend, you know my weakness is to be, if possible, too easily moved by appeals for mercy, and if this man were guilty of the foulest murder that the arm of a man could perpetrate, I might forgive him on such an appeal; but the man who could go to Africa and rob her of her children and sell them into interminable bondage, with no other motive than that which is furnished by dollars and cents, is so much worse than the most depraved murderer that he can never receive pardon at my hands. No! He may rot in jail before he shall have liberty by any act of mine."

-- Lincoln's Wit, Brant House, Ace Books, 1958.

DHK