Christians and Slavery

[Buttons*]

This comes from the thread "Sarah Palin and Religion" : http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/78431-sarah-palin-religion-4.html

It begins on post #16 with Kathryn.

Some of us got off topic, and we deserve a new thread. I'm not sure if this topic has been explored before. But if it has, I'm sorry!

Anyway, to shortly give a brief of the argument:

Kathryn's position is that slavery is not considered OK in the New Testament of the Bible, thus, the United States is being punished by God because of their history with slavery. Whenever slavery is mentioned in the NKJ version of the New Testament, it only means "indentured servant" or "field hand" but never "slave." She sites the passage "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as evidence that Jesus would never have been OK with one group of people having slaves. (Please let me know if this is wrong Kathryn, that way I can ask the mods to change it. )

Buttons*' position is that slavery has always been a part of humanity save for the last 200-300 years. Jews owned slaves, as did any other sociological group in history. Further, Christians owned slaves up until 200-300 years ago also. There is evidence for this fact. I argue that God would not punish us for this evil, because while the New Testament doesnt' encourage slavery, it also doesn't see it as "evil" or "bad." If God had seen slavery as wrong or bad, he would have not given the OK for Jews to have slaves in the first place.

If we accept Kathryn's opinion, this could imply that the Jews are still paying for their "crime" of slavery as well!

I also argue that while Jesus doesn't mention slavery directly, he also fails to mention homosexuality, the problem of evil, and other ontological arguments - he jsut doesn't mention these things. If Jesus does mean to treat people well, that could mean that slavery is still OK as long as they are treated humanely. I feel that if Jesus had been wealthy, he would have owned slaves. Similarly, if we look at the forefathers of the United States, we see that all the men who wrote the Declaration of Independance and the Constitiution of the United States also felt slavery was OK, even though they claimed that all men are created equal.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

Nearly everything about religion has been explored before! Don't worry about it!

The OT and the NT of the bible are describing very different rules. Is this because it is contradictory? Perhaps. Is it because it's being misinterpreted? Perhaps.
Or is it simply because they weren't meant to be taken literally. Jesus told 'parables'. The people Jesus referred to in his parables may never have existed, but it doesn't matter because it's the philosophical meaning behind the story rather than the actual story itself.

Anyway, back to the OP, whereas I care little for the bible, I do believe that slavery of the sort you are talking is wrong. People should be allowed to have freedom from oppression and live without retraints placed on them against their will. Even if slaves are treated well, a class system is not something I am particularly fond of. Servitude is one thing, but servitude against one's will is another.

Saying that: We are all slaves.

GhK.

 

[lunamoth]

Slavery goes against the Christian principle of loving one's neighbor. I believe that because God is love we can progress in our understanding of love in a way that is meaningful.

So even if things were accepted the way they were 'back then' it does not follow that we should accept them now, because our understanding of love of neighbor expands. As Buttons points out I think that there is Biblical evidence of this in the OT, in things such as the Jubilee Year and in the NT, in the inclusiveness of slaves in the Christian community as equals.

 

[Buttercup]

because while the New Testament doesnt' encourage slavery, it also doesn't see it as "evil" or "bad."

I agree...there are numerous scripture verses where Paul gives advice to slaves. He also advises slaves owners to treat slaves with respect and worth. If you'd like examples I'm sure I could find them.

I'm wondering if there are Christians in any part of the world today who have "slaves"? I'm thinking it's a good possibility.

 

[Buttons*]

Anyway, back to the OP, whereas I care little for the bible, I do believe that slavery of the sort you are talking is wrong. People should be allowed to have freedom from oppression and live without retraints placed on them against their will. Even if slaves are treated well, a class system is not something I am particularly fond of. Servitude is one thing, but servitude against one's will is another.

Sure, but do you think that God would punish those who have slaves? Do entire countries suffer the wrath of God beacuse of slavery?

It's wrong today but it wasn't always wrong. It wouldnt' have been "bad" during Biblical times. It wouldn't have been "bad" up until 300 years ago. You probably wouldnt' be saying the same thing 300 years ago if slavery / "servitude" was acceptable and your way of life. I guess you could argue that "now we know better" but it doesn't have Biblical backing. Only "do unto others..." and even that can be used appropriately with slavery. You can treat your servants and slaves as you want to be treated, yet still own them. It doesn't have to be inhumane.

Saying that: We are all slaves.

GhK.

ooooh got another one for existentialism

 

[Buttons*]

Slavery goes against the Christian principle of loving one's neighbor. I believe that because God is love we can progress in our understanding of love in a way that is meaningful.

Does it? If you really do love your slaves, and treat them as equal by way of personage, treat them well, but keep them as slaves, does this encur the wrath of God?

So even if things were accepted the way they were 'back then' it does not follow that we should accept them now, because our understanding of love of neighbor expands. As Buttons points out I think that there is Biblical evidence of this in the OT, in things such as the Jubilee Year and in the NT, in the inclusiveness of slaves in the Christian community as equals.

So would God punish a nation for it?

 

[Buttons*]

I agree...there are numerous scripture verses where Paul gives advice to slaves. He also advises slaves owners to treat slaves with respect and worth. If you'd like examples I'm sure I could find them.

I'm wondering if there are Christians in any part of the world today who have "slaves"? I'm thinking it's a good possibility.

would it make any difference to you if the word "slave" actually meant "indentured servant?" It doesn't in my mind, because no one CHOOSES to be a servant. It's slavery by another name, in my opinion.

 

[Kathryn]

Kathryn's position is that slavery is not considered OK in the New Testament of the Bible, thus, the United States is being punished by God because of their history with slavery.

First of all, Buttons, thanks for starting this thread - I have limited time but have been wanting to dive off into this.

Your explanation of my position isn't really accurate so I'll correct it.

I do not think that slavery AS WE UNDERSTAND IT FROM OUR 21ST CENTURY PERSPECTIVE (ie, steal or buy people from a trader, pack them into the belly of a ship in chains for 9 months, strip them on the town square for inspection, sell them, beat them, work them in the fields, etc) is supported by the teachings of the New Testament.

Whenever slavery is mentioned in the NKJ version of the New Testament, it only means "indentured servant" or "field hand" but never "slave."

I did not say NEVER. What I said was that in the King James version of the bible, the word SLAVE is only used two times. The rest of the time, the english word SERVANT is used. This English words in Greek are actually EIGHT different Greek words, each with a slightly different meaning. Here are all the Greek words used in the New Testament for "slave" or "servant" and their meanings:


1248. diakonia dee-ak-on-ee'-ah from 1249; attendance (as a servant, etc.); figuratively (eleemosynary) aid, (official) service (especially of the Christian teacher, or technically of the diaconate):--(ad-)minister(-ing, -tration, -try), office, relief, service(-ing). 1249. diakonos dee-ak'-on-os probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands; compare 1377); an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess):--deacon, minister, servant.
1400. doulon doo'-lon neuter of 1401; subservient:--servant.
1401. doulos doo'-los from 1210; a slave (literal or figurative, involuntary or voluntary; frequently, therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency):--bond(-man), servant.
1402. douloo doo-lo'-o from 1401; to enslave (literally or figuratively):--bring into (be under) bondage, X given, become (make) servant.
1496. eidololatres i-do-lol-at'-race from 1497 and the base of 3000; an image- (servant or) worshipper (literally or figuratively):--idolater.
1947. epikouria ep-ee-koo-ree'-ah from a compound of 1909 and a (prolonged) form of the base of 2877 (in the sense of servant); assistance:--help.
2324. therapon ther-ap'-ohn apparently a participle from an otherwise obsolete derivative of the base of 2330; a menial attendant (as if cherishing):--servant.
3008. leitourgeo li-toorg-eh'-o from 3011; to be a public servant, i.e. (by analogy) to perform religious or charitable functions (worship, obey, relieve):--minister.
3011. leitourgos li-toorg-os' from a derivative of 2992 and 2041; a public servant, i.e. a functionary in the Temple or Gospel, or (genitive case) a worshipper (of God) or benefactor (of man):--minister(-ed).
3407. misthios mis'-thee-os from 3408; a wage-earner:--hired servant.
3411. misthotos mis-tho-tos' from 3409; a wage-worker (good or bad):--hired servant, hireling.
3511. neokoros neh-o-kor'-os from a form of 3485 and koreo (to sweep); a temple-servant, i.e. (by implication) a votary:--worshipper.
3610. oiketes oy-ket'-ace from 3611; a fellow resident, i.e. menial domestic:--(household) servant.
3807. paidagogos pahee-dag-o-gos' from 3816 and a reduplicated form of 71; a boy-leader, i.e. a servant whose office it was to take the children to school; (by implication, (figuratively) a tutor ("paedagogue")):-- instructor, schoolmaster.
3814. paidiske pahee-dis'-kay feminine diminutive of 3816; a girl, i.e. (specially), a female slave or servant:--bondmaid(-woman), damsel, maid(-en).
3816. pais paheece perhaps from 3817; a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or (by analogy), a girl, and (genitive case) a child; specially, a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king; and by eminence to God):--child, maid(-en), (man) servant, son, young man.
4332. prosedreuo pros-ed-ryoo'-o from a compound of 4314 and the base of 1476; to sit near, i.e. attend as a servant:--wait at.
4498. Rhode hrod'-ay probably for rhode (a rose); Rode, a servant girl:--Rhoda.
5257. huperetes hoop-ay-ret'-ace from 5259 and a derivative of eresso (to row); an under-oarsman, i.e. (generally) subordinate (assistant, sexton, constable):--minister, officer, servant.

She sites the passage "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as evidence that Jesus would never have been OK with one group of people having slaves. (Please let me know if this is wrong Kathryn, that way I can ask the mods to change it. )

Almost right - but my position is this: Based on this passage, and the other teachings of Christianity, I believe that Jesus would "never have been OK" with many of the aspects of slavery over the centuries - the cruelty, the beatings, separation from families, denial of basic human rights, etc. I do NOT believe that Jesus would have been opposed to indentured servanthood, sharecropping, or perhaps even the concept of caring well for slaves that have been inherited (that would depend totally on the individual circumstances).

Buttons*' position is that slavery has always been a part of humanity save for the last 200-300 years.

Actually, it still IS part of humanity in some non-Christian countries.

I argue that God would not punish us for this evil, because while the New Testament doesnt' encourage slavery, it also doesn't see it as "evil" or "bad." If God had seen slavery as wrong or bad, he would have not given the OK for Jews to have slaves in the first place.

If we accept Kathryn's opinion, this could imply that the Jews are still paying for their "crime" of slavery as well!

Slavery as practiced in the United States (and participated in by European countries) from the 17th through 19th centuries was a PARTICULARLY horrible institution. The slave trade as practiced then could in NO WAY be condoned by Christian standards. However, my post did point out that in the case of inherited slaves, I do believe that sometimes a slave owner could have acted within Christian standards. I gave the example of my ancestor who owned about 15 slaves in the mid 1800s. He did not buy or sell any slaves. He did not separate their families. He fed and clothed them, gave them individual homes on his property, medical care, etc. He worked beside them in the fields. When the Civil War came, his slaves were terrified that they would be "freed." They had no place to go, owned no land - and begged him to keep them. After the war, they became sharecroppers. Not sure what my ancestor should have done under those circumstances. By the way - this particular ancestor of mine did not profess to even BE a Christian. In fact, he was the black sheep of the family.

I

feel that if Jesus had been wealthy, he would have owned slaves.

Sorry but this is pure conjecture. I do NOT believe that Jesus would have bought or sold people against their will. Once again, we are looking at the word "slave" through a 21st century perspective.

Similarly, if we look at the forefathers of the United States, we see that all the men who wrote the Declaration of Independance and the Constitiution of the United States also felt slavery was OK, even though they claimed that all men are created equal.

I believe this is a horrible part of our United States history - a part I am not proud of. By the way, not all the founders of this country believed that slavery was right. The slave trade was a source of contention and debate from it's inception. Remember that this country was only formed in 1776. Less than 100 years later (that's not a long time in the course of history) our country fought a HORRIBLE war over this very issue. Slavery was debated fiercely by our country's leaders throughout the 18th century, and abolished or totally out of practice in much of the United States long before the Civil War began.

 

[Kathryn]

would it make any difference to you if the word "slave" actually meant "indentured servant?" It doesn't in my mind, because no one CHOOSES to be a servant. It's slavery by another name, in my opinion.

Here you are quite wrong - indentured servanthood, bondservanthood, sharecropping are all VOLUNTARY forms of "slavery." Actually, they are NOT slavery, they are voluntary forms of SERVANTHOOD. Just as being a house maid could be considered a form of servanthood. The SERVANT applies for the position, and works for clearly defined benefits and limitations - pay, or room and board, or a portion of the crops they help grow and harvest, etc, - a certain number of hours a week, or length of time (7 years in exchange for paying off a debt for example).

This differs very little (if any) from someone who would RATHER be an office manager but who doesn't have the skills or experience yet, so they work at Burger King for a couple of years. They are doing menial work that they don't particularly enjoy, for very little pay - but due to their current life situation, that's all that's available to them for now. It's hopefully not a permanent state, and it's not FORCED on them, but their options are limited.

 

[Kathryn]

Now, I'll address the issue of a nation being punished for slavery:

This concept comes from the Biblical teaching that the "sins of the fathers are visited upon the children." I believe that the truth of this teaching manifests itself in many ways - from strictly a personal level to a global level. I'll give a couple of examples:

You can look at some families and see a pattern of physical abuse over multiple generations. Each successive generation continues that lifestyle. Why? Because this way of life is what they know - sometimes ALL they know. Are the innocent children of each new generation being PUNISHED by God? I don't believe so - but I do believe that their fathers' sins have consequences in their childrens' lives, and that this sort of dysfunctional behavior is often perpetuated for many generations. This is one example of "sins of the father" being "visited upon the children."

Another example would be the use of alcohol or tobacco during pregnancy, that results in a birth defect directly related to that substance abuse. God is not punishing the infant, but the infant's health problems stem directly from the actions of the mother.

Another example - say that a son inherits an estate that has been in his family for 6 generations. He, however, is a tax evader. He LOSES the estate due to his illegal actions. Therefore, his children do not inherit the family estate. His actions have economically harmed his heirs.

What if I married the wrong guy at age 20 and had four children with him? Then I finally wise up at age 30 and realize he's a terrible dad for my kids? What if we got a divorce and then I had to work long hours and my kids had to be latchkey kids? My decisions (and their father's decisions) culminated in my children NOT having a good role model for a father, and an absent mother for much of their childhood. They suffered from this. In case you haven't figured it out yet, this really happened. MY sins and their father's sins negatively impacted our children.

Now on a national level - I believe that slavery as practiced by our country and supported by Europeans was a particularly horrible type of enforced slavery - a type that has been practiced off and on throughout history. INHUMANE slavery is GOING to have consequences - and it has in this country and even in Europe. Our African American community is STILL recovering from the effects of slavery and oppression, and our country has paid a high price for this - starting with the Civil War in which thousands and thousands of our young men were killed, going on through the oppression of African Americans from the end of the Civil War through the mid-1900s which culminated in ghettos, desperate poverty on many levels, unfair standards of education, dependence in many cases on welfare, splintered families, etc, etc. Do you honestly think that our country has not suffered and does not CONTINUE to suffer the effects of slavery?

This is what I mean by the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Sure, but do you think that God would punish those who have slaves? Do entire countries suffer the wrath of God beacuse of slavery?

No because I don't beleive God exists. However, if God did exist I think he would probably have some trouble with restrictions of free will, as he had so much crap from making free will to begin with

It's wrong today but it wasn't always wrong. It wouldnt' have been "bad" during Biblical times. It wouldn't have been "bad" up until 300 years ago. You probably wouldnt' be saying the same thing 300 years ago if slavery / "servitude" was acceptable and your way of life. I guess you could argue that "now we know better" but it doesn't have Biblical backing. Only "do unto others..." and even that can be used appropriately with slavery. You can treat your servants and slaves as you want to be treated, yet still own them. It doesn't have to be inhumane.

Oh absolutely, on a biblical level there's nothing really to say that it is wrong. But to me, every act that resricts the free will of another human is wrong. We are all equal on a Aeyic level, and therefore nobody should really 'own' anybody else. I realise that 300 years ago slavery may have been considered ok, and you might be right in saying that I may have accepted it. But I would probably not condone it anyway.

ooooh got another one for existentialism

Haha, Nietzsche is one of my favourite writers of all time. Saying that, i'm not really sure where I lie on the philosophical thinking spectrum.

GhK.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I feel that if Jesus had been wealthy, he would have owned slaves.

:no:

Similarly, if we look at the forefathers of the United States, we see that all the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States also felt slavery was OK, even though they claimed that all men are created equal.

They did not define slaves as men. To them, they where "boys". Women where not included as well.

I find this interesting when people romanticize about the founding fathers and what they would have wanted.

 

[Buttons*]

Almost right - but my position is this: Based on this passage, and the other teachings of Christianity, I believe that Jesus would "never have been OK" with many of the aspects of slavery over the centuries - the cruelty, the beatings, separation from families, denial of basic human rights, etc. I do NOT believe that Jesus would have been opposed to indentured servanthood, sharecropping, or perhaps even the concept of caring well for slaves that have been inherited (that would depend totally on the individual circumstances).

This was a distinction I had not seen in your previous posts. You feel the only part of slavery that Jesus would have had a problem with is the actual beating and trading of slaves? Only that small bit of slavery where people were caught by their neighbors and sold to people halfway across the ocean?

Actually, it still IS part of humanity in some non-Christian countries.

Yes, but it was only beginning to be considered "bad" 200+ years ago. Now it's taboo.

Slavery as practiced in the United States (and participated in by European countries) from the 17th through 19th centuries was a PARTICULARLY horrible institution.

It was also practiced by the other people in Africa who were trapping neighboring tribes and selling them off to the white folk.

The slave trade as practiced then could in NO WAY be condoned by Christian standards. However, my post did point out that in the case of inherited slaves, I do believe that sometimes a slave owner could have acted within Christian standards. I gave the example of my ancestor who owned about 15 slaves in the mid 1800s. He did not buy or sell any slaves. He did not separate their families. He fed and clothed them, gave them individual homes on his property, medical care, etc. He worked beside them in the fields. When the Civil War came, his slaves were terrified that they would be "freed." They had no place to go, owned no land - and begged him to keep them. After the war, they became sharecroppers. Not sure what my ancestor should have done under those circumstances. By the way - this particular ancestor of mine did not profess to even BE a Christian. In fact, he was the black sheep of the family.

MANY of the people in the South did that with their slaves. Not all were cruel. Most of them, by the time the war came, had been inherited by several generations. So, can we hold people responsible for the crimes they inherited? Would God still punish for this?

Sorry but this is pure conjecture. I do NOT believe that Jesus would have bought or sold people against their will.

Unless he had inhereted them, then that would be ok.

Once again, we are looking at the word "slave" through a 21st century perspective.

which is a completely new part of the argument. I don't remember you saying any of the problems with "slave trade" in the other thread, just slavery itself. Now, we can say that Jesus wouldn't have had problems with slavery, just slave trade. Is this correct?

 

[Buttons*]

Here you are quite wrong - indentured servanthood, bondservanthood, sharecropping are all VOLUNTARY forms of "slavery." Actually, they are NOT slavery, they are voluntary forms of SERVANTHOOD. Just as being a house maid could be considered a form of servanthood. The SERVANT applies for the position, and works for clearly defined benefits and limitations - pay, or room and board, or a portion of the crops they help grow and harvest, etc, - a certain number of hours a week, or length of time (7 years in exchange for paying off a debt for example).

House maids of the South were still slaves, you know. Jews didn't adhere to this sort of law. Though, since we're only discussing slave trade, I guess Jews don't apply?

This differs very little (if any) from someone who would RATHER be an office manager but who doesn't have the skills or experience yet, so they work at Burger King for a couple of years. They are doing menial work that they don't particularly enjoy, for very little pay - but due to their current life situation, that's all that's available to them for now. It's hopefully not a permanent state, and it's not FORCED on them, but their options are limited.

lol, free market versus indentured servant. HUGE difference.

 

[challupa]

Just to address the NT and slavery. I think that Jesus did not think slavery was wrong and here is the verse that makes me think that.
Jesus is reaffirming the laws of the prophets in the OT by saying:
Matt. 5:17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. Revised Standard Version.

He never did disavow slavery and he had plenty of opportunity to do so.

Paul also continued the belief that slavery was right:
Titus 2:9 Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect.

"Popes and other fathers of the Catholic Church owned slaves as late as 1800. Jesuits in Colonial Maryland and nuns in Europe and Latin America owned slaves. The church did not condemn slavery until 1888 after every Christian nation had abolished the practice". (Victor J. Stengor "God the Failed Hypothesis")

So clearly the Church felt Jesus condoned Slavery.

To address the issue of God punishing America for slavery, I of course do not agree with that. I don't think God punishes anyone. However, I do agree that our actions do effect things around us and sometimes for generations to come as Kathryn points out. I'm sure the repercussions of slavery and other acts of suppression against humanity are always there. Everything we do impacts the world we live in.

 

[Kathryn]

This was a distinction I had not seen in your previous posts. You feel the only part of slavery that Jesus would have had a problem with is the actual beating and trading of slaves? Only that small bit of slavery where people were caught by their neighbors and sold to people halfway across the ocean?


Yes, but it was only beginning to be considered "bad" 200+ years ago. Now it's taboo.


It was also practiced by the other people in Africa who were trapping neighboring tribes and selling them off to the white folk.

MANY of the people in the South did that with their slaves. Not all were cruel. Most of them, by the time the war came, had been inherited by several generations. So, can we hold people responsible for the crimes they inherited? Would God still punish for this?

Unless he had inhereted them, then that would be ok.

which is a completely new part of the argument. I don't remember you saying any of the problems with "slave trade" in the other thread, just slavery itself. Now, we can say that Jesus wouldn't have had problems with slavery, just slave trade. Is this correct?

Buttons - in the earlier thread, which had NOTHING to do with slavery, I did not go into my whole belief system about slavery - I already felt badly about "hijacking the thread," which is why I made the statement about the topic needing to be continued on another thread.

 

[Buttons*]

Buttons - in the earlier thread, which had NOTHING to do with slavery, I did not go into my whole belief system about slavery - I already felt badly about "hijacking the thread," which is why I made the statement about the topic needing to be continued on another thread.

Which is fair enough, but we were talking about two separate things. I was talking about slavery in general, and you were discussing slave trade.

Do you still think God punishes for slavery in general or just slave trade?

 

[Kathryn]

Buttons, in your responding posts, it seems obvious to me that you are not noticing the HUGE difference between enforced slavery and SERVANTHOOD - which is generally consensual.

Indentured servanthood exists in the free market - we just call it different things in the 21st century. A perfect example is this: My dad has a guest house on his property. My cousin was going through a hard time. He asked to live in the guest house in exchange for labor around my dad's place. My cousin usually makes about $15 an hour as a carpenter. They figured out what the rent would normally be and divided that by $15 to come up with the number of hours my cousin would work around my dad's place per month in exchange for living there. So therefore my cousin owed my dad a certain number of hours per month of work, for a certain amount of time (the number of months he would live there). In those work hours he would do whatever chores my dad needed him to do.

Voila - indentured servanthood.

It's not as common now as it was a hundred years ago or longer, but it's still around.

In a sense, anyone who works is an indentured servant. We work for a set amount of time in exchange for money, though, rather than services. Still the same concept.

Up till later in the 20th century, indentured servants as we think of them were a fact of life even in the United States. Sometimes the time and labor was tied to apprenticeship as well. Or to pay for passage from Europe or Asia to the United States, for example.

These people were called (gasp) SERVANTS. But it was voluntary on their part.

Now, as for Jesus and slave trade - I absolutely believe that, based on Jesus' teachings, he would have been generally opposed to the buying and selling of people against their will - and CERTAINLY opposed to many of the evil practices of the slave trade in the US, Europe, and Africa in the 17th-19th centuries.

Keep in mind though that there are many individual scenarios that we can't judge with general principles. For example - is it humane for a person to buy another person - in order to save them from being bought by an evil, cruel slave owner? Is it humane to "free" people who own nothing, have no education, and no means to make a living? That's basically just putting them out in the cold with nothing - making them homeless.

That's why Jesus said, "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU." Apply that principle and you'll be ok.

 

[Kathryn]

House maids of the South were still slaves, you know.

J

My southern family had a housemaid from 1935 through 1980. Her name was Julie. Julie happened to be African American. She came to work Monday-Friday from about 7 am to about 3 or 4 pm. She did whatever needed to be done around the house - laundry, cooking, cleaning, changing baby diapers, babysitting, running errands, etc. She lived right down the road. Often her kids and grandkids would come by the house, on business or pleasure. Several generations of kids - black and white - grew up playing together.

Julie was well paid for her services. Her work was voluntary. She liked it because it was flexible - if she needed time off, she just took it. We loved her like a family member.

Over the years, our family often stepped in to help her family - we helped pay for things like medical care, college, school supplies, funerals, etc.

When she died, several generations of our family attended her PACKED funeral. I still miss her -- she was my black grandma.

She was also a maid - by your standards I guess a slave. In many cultures she would be considered a servant.

But she was respected and adored by my family. By the way, Julie was the descendent of slaves, who used to work on my family's farm.

lol, free market versus indentured servant. HUGE difference.

See my post above.

 

[Kathryn]

[

quote=challupa;1488358]Just to address the NT and slavery. I think that Jesus did not think slavery was wrong and here is the verse that makes me think that.
Jesus is reaffirming the laws of the prophets in the OT by saying:
Matt. 5:17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. Revised Standard Version.

Do you have any scripture references from OT LAW of the prophets that addresses enforced slavery?

Paul also continued the belief that slavery was right:
Titus 2:9 Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect.

Please do a word study on the Greek word "doulos" which is the word used in this verse. Here's a start for you:

Doulos -
1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
a) a slave
b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men
c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant

As you can see, this Greek word has several meanings. When studying a word, do not impose 21st century concepts onto it - like slaves huddled in the bow of a ship in chains, or being whipped in the cotton fields. This verse could be directed at any form of servanthood. In fact, the King James version (and most other bible versions) use the word SERVANT in this verse.

"Popes and other fathers of the Catholic Church owned slaves as late as 1800. Jesuits in Colonial Maryland and nuns in Europe and Latin America owned slaves. The church did not condemn slavery until 1888 after every Christian nation had abolished the practice". (Victor J. Stengor "God the Failed Hypothesis")

So? We're not talking about whether or not the Pope was morally right or wrong in his position, or the Roman Catholic Church, or any other organized religion. We're talking about whether or not Jesus condoned enforced slavery.

So clearly the Church felt Jesus condoned Slavery.

Conjecture. Society in general accepted slavery, including but certainly not limited to Christians. And not all Christians, by the way - especially here in the United States, many Christians were HORRIFIED by the evil nature of slavery in this country - hence the most bloody war ever fought on North American soil.