Do Christians agree with slavery?

[ChristineES]

so is it generally accepted to beat your maid?

Would you please give me a break? Why do you always take my statements and add these little out of context statements to them? It is kind of aggravating. I never beat anyone in my life, I never wanted to, and if anyone would beat their maid, they'd go to jail- with good reason. I doubt I'll ever have enough money to have a maid anyway.

 

[Me Myself]

Would you please give me a break? Why do you always take my statements and add these little out of context statements to them? It is kind of aggravating. I never beat anyone in my life, I never wanted to, and if anyone would beat their maid, they'd go to jail- with good reason. I doubt I'll ever have enough money to have a maid anyway.

She is talking about laws in bible where it is okay to beat your maid according to God.

She puts this because your answer didn´t talk about that issue.

I think it is fair.

 

[ChristineES]

She is talking about laws in bible where it is okay to beat your maid according to God.

She puts this because your answer didn´t talk about that issue.

I think it is fair.

I don't think it's fair. For one thing, I didn't live 2,500 years ago. And I certainly don't follow every single law that is written in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th book in the Bible- I don't know anyone who does- not Christians and not Jews. Most people don't even read them (I did, but only because I read every book in the bible). People had different standards back then and their laws show that. And I think I made that abundantly clear, if you were to actually read my answer instead of just getting what you want from it.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't think it's fair. For one thing, I didn't live 2,500 years ago. And I certainly don't follow every single law that is written in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th book in the Bible- I don't know anyone who does- not Christians and not Jews. Most people don't even read them (I did, but only because I read every book in the bible). People had different standards back then and their laws show that. And I think I made that abundantly clear, if you were to actually read my answer instead of just getting what you want from it.

To be fair I neveer said you did, and neither she apparently.

She ASKED if it is generaly accepted (rethorical probably.)

While I wouldn´t argue that christians themselves agree with slavery, I do wouold say that their line of reasoning and the way they extract things from the bible would leave it at that christianity does say it is okay (even when christians themselves wouldn´t say that)

It is fair the comparison because the lawss about slavery where allegedly said by God and his Holy Spirit inspired prohphets, and because it was NOT one of the laws that Jesus said were wrong. More of, it was one of the laws that Paul seem to agree on, saying "everyone has it´s place".

The idea is to show an incoherence in thought and moral rather to literaly imploy you or even most christians would find slavery ok in today´s world.

 

[ChristineES]

To be fair I never said you did, and neither she apparently.

She ASKED if it is generally accepted (rhetorical probably.)

While I wouldn't argue that Christians themselves agree with slavery, I do would say that their line of reasoning and the way they extract things from the bible would leave it at that Christianity does say it is okay (even when Christians themselves wouldn't say that)

It is fair the comparison because the laws about slavery where allegedly said by God and his Holy Spirit inspired prophets, and because it was NOT one of the laws that Jesus said were wrong. More of, it was one of the laws that Paul seem to agree on, saying "everyone has it´s place".

The idea is to show an incoherence in thought and moral rather to literally imply you or even most Christians would find slavery OK in today´s world.

There are plenty of "accepted" things that I find wrong. Even back in the 1800s, before slavery was abolished in the USA, there were Christians who found it appalling- and became abolitionists. If people didn't find it wrong, then it would still be in place today (and a lot of violence, too, with it). I think that some people don't seem to realize that we Christians do have some common sense and that we can think "outside" the Bible. The Old Testament to me is a guide book and stories about men and women who followed God- that doesn't mean that I am going to start sacrificing bulls in my backyard or start stoning certain people just because people did it thousands of years ago.

 

[Me Myself]

There are plenty of "accepted" things that I find wrong. Even back in the 1800s, before slavery was abolished in the USA, there were Christians who found it appalling- and became abolitionists. If people didn't find it wrong, then it would still be in place today (and a lot of violence, too, with it). I think that some people don't seem to realize that we Christians do have some common sense and that we can think "outside" the Bible. The Old Testament to me is a guide book and stories about men and women who followed God- that doesn't mean that I am going to start sacrificing bulls in my backyard or start stoning certain people just because people did it thousands of years ago.

Now I feel like you didn´t read what I wrote, so I guess I´ll leave it at there

 

[ChristineES]

Now I feel like you didn´t read what I wrote, so I guess I´ll leave it at there

I did read what you wrote, I was just kind of "adding" to it, not debating it.

 

[Me Myself]

I did read what you wrote, I was just kind of "adding" to it, not debating it.

Ah! now I understand xD

Well , Reality is closemindness comes from any religion or ideology regretfully, and with closemindness also comes paranoia of believing everyone else to be closeminded o.o.

Coming again to the debate at hand, the thing is that in the bible God had specific orders that condone slavery, so do you believe that parts of the bible were not inspire by God then?

do you believe it should be mainstream christianity´s opinion that not all the bible is inspired?

 

[Kathryn]

Many, if not MOST, of the abolitionists used the teachings of Christianity to bolster their case and to successfully abolish slavery as an institution in the United States. Many, if not MOST, civil rights leaders in the 1950s and 1960s did the same.

Christians embrace the teachings of Jesus. Jesus clearly said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Treat your neighbor as you want to be treated."

If all of us followed those teachings, issues like slavery, low wages, unfair work practices or environments, discrimination, etc would fall by the wayside.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think it's fair. For one thing, I didn't live 2,500 years ago.

But you were the one defending the slavery practices of 2500 years ago, making them out to be mild and pleasant.

And I certainly don't follow every single law that is written in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th book in the Bible- I don't know anyone who does- not Christians and not Jews. Most people don't even read them (I did, but only because I read every book in the bible). People had different standards back then and their laws show that. And I think I made that abundantly clear, if you were to actually read my answer instead of just getting what you want from it.

OTOH, most Christians I know would agree, when pressed, that even if the Old Law no longer applies to Christians, it was authored by God and was right for the particular place and time for which it was intended.

Many, if not MOST, of the abolitionists used the teachings of Christianity to bolster their case and to successfully abolish slavery as an institution in the United States. Many, if not MOST, civil rights leaders in the 1950s and 1960s did the same.

As did the people on the other side... in both cases.

Christians embrace the teachings of Jesus. Jesus clearly said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Treat your neighbor as you want to be treated."

And like I said earlier, there are plenty of places in the Bible where the specifics it gives contradict the larger general principles. There's no Golden Rule in subjugating women, for instance, but that's all through the Epistles.

If all of us followed those teachings, issues like slavery, low wages, unfair work practices or environments, discrimination, etc would fall by the wayside.

Really? Then why does Paul mention Christian slave-owners in passing without condemning them... and sometimes even praising them, apparently not having any issue with the idea of one person owning another as property?

I think you can extract a message from the NT (though not the OT) that's something like "don't mistreat your slaves", but there's nothing in the Bible that says anything like "don't own slaves at all." And as I mentioned before, the NT is rather into the idea of presenting Christianity as a form of slavery: putting on "yokes" as "bond-servants" of Christ and all that.

 

[waitasec]

Would you please give me a break? Why do you always take my statements and add these little out of context statements to them? It is kind of aggravating. I never beat anyone in my life, I never wanted to, and if anyone would beat their maid, they'd go to jail- with good reason. I doubt I'll ever have enough money to have a maid anyway.

well because what you said, wasn't accurate. it wasn't out of context. the idea that a maid or a butler was what slavery probably was in the OT really doesn't seem to gel with a passages that allows for one person to beat another person up because they are their property.

i simply cannot let statements like that go unnoticed and i have to bring attention to it...

 

[Villager]

apparently not having any issue with the idea of one person owning another as property?

That condition is effectively just what Paul opposed: he told masters that slaves were not their property, with whom they could do as they wished:

'Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him.' Eph 6:9 NIV

'Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.' Col 4:1 NIV

In effect, the master-slave relationship became triangular in the Christian household, with deity providing the controlling factor among people who were better related than ordinary brothers and sisters. In effect, Christianity tended to subvert slavery, by showing the human relationship upon which the practice depended to be a false, unnatural and indeed inhumane one- no matter what any apostle wrote. There must have been many slaves and masters who were the greatest personal friends, treating each other as equals, in private, but going through the motions of the slave relationship in public. It's not too surprising if the Roman Empire disapproved of a 'leveller' faith, which of course it famously did. Had it not done so, had Christianity been allowed to survive and flourish, one can be reasonably certain that slavery would not have survived.

On a wider, socio-political level, one must be practical about this. Paul was in no position to change the economic basis of what is euphemistically called classical civilisation- at least, not directly. Had everyone become Christian (and Paul considered that all were commanded to do so), slaves would surely have become a thing of the past. Had Christians, in a minority, given up their slaves, they would have been at severe economic disadvantage. And of course, none of the apostles was prepared to make a slave revolt part of the manifesto, because it was useless to gain physical freedom, but go to hell afterwards. The gospel was their overriding concern, as Paul repeatedly pointed out, and that should be the factor constantly borne in mind by modern commentators.

 

[ChristineES]

OTOH, most Christians I know would agree, when pressed, that even if the Old Law no longer applies to Christians, it was authored by God and was right for the particular place and time for which it was intended.

I think you are right about one thing, there are a few Christians who can dig into the Bible to find an excuse to able to either condemn something that they don't like or to condone something they do agree with. I have tried taking two totally out of context verses to prove anything I wanted to. That practice gives the majority of we Christians a bad name. That, to me, is a misuse of God's Words.

 

[ChristineES]

well because what you said, wasn't accurate. it wasn't out of context. the idea that a maid or a butler was what slavery probably was in the OT really doesn't seem to gel with a passages that allows for one person to beat another person up because they are their property.

i simply cannot let statements like that go unnoticed and i have to bring attention to it...

That practice you have of "bringing attention to something" is just aggravating to me at times. It has the opposite effect of what you want. In future, my advice (which you are not obligated to follow) would to be find a different method. I abhor the thought of owning another person and I also abhor the thought of ever harming another person (even if I had to protect myself or my children)and I, although I know you didn't mean it to be, would find a statement like that a little offensive. I wouldn't tell you this if I didn't like you, you know.

 

[waitasec]

That practice you have of "bringing attention to something" is just aggravating to me at times. It has the opposite effect of what you want. In future, my advice (which you are not obligated to follow) would to be find a different method. I abhor the thought of owning another person and I also abhor the thought of ever harming another person (even if I had to protect myself or my children)and I, although I know you didn't mean it to be, would find a statement like that a little offensive. I wouldn't tell you this if I didn't like you, you know.

i was only showing how off your statement was.
do you really think maids and butlers is an accurate picture of OT slavery even though you said you didn't know? why make that claim knowing a passage is justifying a master can beat their servant?

 

[ChristineES]

i was only showing how off your statement was.
do you really think maids and butlers is an accurate picture of OT slavery even though you said you didn't know? why make that claim knowing a passage is justifying a master can beat their servant?

It wasn't what you said, it was how you said it. There is always more than one way to get a point across.

 

[waitasec]

It wasn't what you said, it was how you said it. There is always more than one way to get a point across.

this is how i said it...

so is it generally accepted to beat your maid?

it's the way you received it...which wasn't my intention...
i didn't give you a or a :areyoucra in which case i could understand why you would have taken it that way but
i gave you
:candle:

 

[ChristineES]

this is how i said it...


it's the way you received it...which wasn't my intention...
i didn't give you a or a :areyoucra in which case i could understand why you would have taken it that way but
i gave you
:candle:

All right, point taken. Peace out. :candle:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That condition is effectively just what Paul opposed: he told masters that slaves were not their property, with whom they could do as they wished:

'Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him.' Eph 6:9 NIV

'Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.' Col 4:1 NIV

IOW, Paul effectively said "hey slave owners, remember that you're slaves, too"... not "hey slave owners, it's wrong to own people as property!"

In effect, the master-slave relationship became triangular in the Christian household, with deity providing the controlling factor among people who were better related than ordinary brothers and sisters.

It was "triangular" in the same way that other arrangements of property had God inserted into them as well... look at the story of Ananais and Saphyra in Acts, for instance: they get struck down by God because they refuse to acknowledge that their own personal property doesn't actually belong to God.

This still doesn't mean that Christian slave-owners weren't treating their slaves as property, just that they considered themselves stewards of those slaves for God, much like the other believers in that Acts story considered themselves stewards of their farms, livestock and other chattels for God. It's still an arrangement where people are being owned as property.

In effect, Christianity tended to subvert slavery, by showing the human relationship upon which the practice depended to be a false, unnatural and indeed inhumane one- no matter what any apostle wrote. There must have been many slaves and masters who were the greatest personal friends, treating each other as equals, in private, but going through the motions of the slave relationship in public.

That sounds lovely. Now... if you can present evidence that it actually happened, maybe I can take it seriously.

It's not too surprising if the Roman Empire disapproved of a 'leveller' faith, which of course it famously did. Had it not done so, had Christianity been allowed to survive and flourish, one can be reasonably certain that slavery would not have survived.

Slavery continued to survive and flourish for more than a thousand years after Christianity became the dominant religion of the territory of the Roman Empire. If Christians were only deferring to societal norms by allowing slavery to continue, then this still doesn't explain why it continued even when the Christians were the ones defining those societal norms.

On a wider, socio-political level, one must be practical about this. Paul was in no position to change the economic basis of what is euphemistically called classical civilisation- at least, not directly. Had everyone become Christian (and Paul considered that all were commanded to do so), slaves would surely have become a thing of the past. Had Christians, in a minority, given up their slaves, they would have been at severe economic disadvantage. And of course, none of the apostles was prepared to make a slave revolt part of the manifesto, because it was useless to gain physical freedom, but go to hell afterwards. The gospel was their overriding concern, as Paul repeatedly pointed out, and that should be the factor constantly borne in mind by modern commentators.

You're not the first person I've heard to make this argument, but I think it makes no sense at all. It goes completely counter to the Gospel message, which proclaims that if you're disadvantaged and persecuted, you should be thankful because you'll receive reward in Heaven... or that a person with two cloaks is so "rich" that he should give one away.

The faith that Jesus preached in the Gospels is not the sort of faith where it's okay to compromise on principle at the expense of another human being for a bit of earthly comfort or to avoid rocking the boat.

 

[cablescavenger]

It becomes quickly obvious from reading the Bible (especially OT) that slavery is an accepted norm. Even Jesus in the New Testament accepts it and teaches that a slave should 'respect' his master.

Are we right to assume that because God condones it then it is ok?

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds - Redemption Song, Bob Marley