Slavery - yes or no?

[Pegg]

it must be quite nice to have a group of slaves - free labour, people to look down upon, free entertainment and the like plus surely an immense ego boost.

Now I know this thread has been done before but what really is the Biblical stance on this one?

slave ownership was not viewed in a positive light if the slave owner was unjust or unrighteous toward his slave:
Jeremiah 22:13 “Woe to the one building his house, but not with righteousness, and his upper chambers, but not with justice, by use of his fellowman who serves for nothing, and whose wages he does not give him

I think its entirely possible for some forms of slavery to exist which were of benefit the slave. Extremely poor people who could not feed their families or who fell into debt and could not repay it could become a slave to the person they were indebted to so as to repay the debt and feed the family.

but under Isreals laws, the slaves were to go free after repaying the debt and the maximum amount of time a person could be a slave was for 7 years... unless the slave chose to remain as a slave to the master of the house.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Depending on their nationality >_>

But yes, for some people there was no other way to support themselves (presumably because they would not be given a job)

 

[Pegg]

Depending on their nationality >_>

But yes, for some people there was no other way to support themselves (presumably because they would not be given a job)

the foreigners were under different rules, yes. That is because they were under the same rules that applied to them in their own nations

but for an isrealite, the rules were different because God never intended for mankind to make slaves of each other and it was through the nation of Isreal that God showed all mankind how they should treat each other. So slaves had to be set free after 7 years servitude.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yet that allowed them to treat non Israelites worse, regardless of their 'divine' justifications it was essentially an intentionally racist policy (common for the time, I am not saying this is in any way unique)

 

[arthra]

I think the reason slavery was in the Bible is because slavery as an economic reality was widely practised up until the mid nineteenth century.. It was a "reality" and as such it was a subject in scripture...

10
But when a famine covered all the land of Chanaan, they went
down into Egypt, and sojourned there, while they were nourished,
and became there a great multitude, so that one could not number
their nation.
11
Therefore the king of Egypt rose up against them, and dealt
subtilly with them, and brought them low with labouring in
brick, and made them slaves.

(Deuterocanonical Apocrypha, Judith)

The Hebrews themselves were enslaved in Egypt.. and they had slaves like most all other ancient peoples.

What was provided in the Bible was what is called the Jubilee.. which stated that every fiftieth year the slaves would go free...and this provided the idea for the abolitionist movement and hope for slaves that someday they could go free!

25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

(King James Bible, Leviticus)

So while there is slavery in the Bible it is ameliorated by such practices as Jubilee.

In the Quran:

"A believer killeth not a believer but by mischance: and whoso killeth a
believer by mischance shall be bound to free a believer from slavery; and the
blood-money shall be paid to the family of the slain, unless they convert it
into alms."

(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 4 - Women)

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
The Prophet said, "Whoever manumits a slave
owned by two masters, should manumit him
completely (not partially) if he is rich after having
its price evaluated."

Volume 3, Book 46, Number 698:

In the Baha'i Writings:

No Industrial Slavery

"In the Book of Aqdas Bahá'u'lláh forbids slavery, and
Abdu'l-Bahá has explained that not only chattel slavery, but
also industrial slavery, is contrary to the law of God. When in
the United States in 1912, He said to the American people: --

Between 1860 and 1865 you did a wonderful thing;
you abolished chattel slavery; but today you must do a
much more wonderful thing: you must abolish industrial
slavery. ...

The solution of economic questions will not be brought
about by array of capital against labor, and labor against
capital, in strife and conflict, but by the voluntary attitude
of goodwill on both sides. Then a real and lasting justness
of conditions will be secured. ..."

(Dr. J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 144)

"He commanded the abolition of both chattel and economic
slavery, and ever since, the progress toward emancipation
has been a ferment in all parts of the world."

(Dr. J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 235)

 

[nnmartin]

I think its entirely possible for some forms of slavery to exist which were of benefit the slave. Extremely poor people who could not feed their families or who fell into debt and could not repay it could become a slave to the person they were indebted to so as to repay the debt and feed the family.

Informedfignorance has touched on the point here that perhaps these people would not be given a job in the first place.

I mean why would you go to the expense of paying someone when you can just force them into debt and have them as a slave instead?

sounds like Workfare to me!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

And if some people crossed your land and you had the opportunity to swindle them to put them in debt, with no way to pay it back if you convince your neighbours not to give them a job... easy way to get slaves given how long it took to travel (and therefore how long it would take them to find somewhere that WOULD give them a job, thus preventing them from paying you back on time).

 

[nnmartin]

but for an isrealite, the rules were different because God never intended for mankind to make slaves of each other and it was through the nation of Isreal that God showed all mankind how they should treat each other. So slaves had to be set free after 7 years servitude.

how about things in the New Testament though?

I feel fine in passing over much of the OT as it seems to be more foundational in approach, but why did Jesus tell people to respect their master?

 

[Pegg]

Informedofignorance has touched on the point here that perhaps these people would not be given a job in the first place.

I mean why would you go to the expense of paying someone when you can just force them into debt and have them as a slave instead?

sounds like Workfare to me!

in some cases, a wealthy land owner may already have a full load of paid workers and are unable to afford to pay for any more (even businesses today know when they have reach the limit of their workforce)

would it be wrong of such a land owner to accept a person as a slave in exchange for housing and food rather then cash?

I dont believe it is.

 

[nnmartin]

indeed , it would be wrong.

but if this person were allowed to leave at any time then I guess that would be ok , but then he would not actually be a slave.

I can't really see any situation in which having a slave could be justified morally.

 

[Pegg]

And if some people crossed your land and you had the opportunity to swindle them to put them in debt, with no way to pay it back if you convince your neighbours not to give them a job... easy way to get slaves given how long it took to travel (and therefore how long it would take them to find somewhere that WOULD give them a job, thus preventing them from paying you back on time).

you are not really talking the slavery rules set out in the mosaic law now though. You are talking about people deliberately defrauding others, which is against Gods laws.
Such people were warned by God that their actions would bring them adverse judgement by him:
Jeremiah 22:13 “Woe to the one building his house, but not with righteousness, and his upper chambers, but not with justice, by use of his fellowman who serves for nothing, and whose wages he does not give him

 

[InformedIgnorance]

But that only applies if there ARE wages that are unpaid, in slavery there are no wages, thus this is not a comment on immoral use of slavery, instead it is a comment on refusing to pay the people you EMPLOY, free men, not slaves.

 

[Me Myself]

in some cases, a wealthy land owner may already have a full load of paid workers and are unable to afford to pay for any more (even businesses today know when they have reach the limit of their workforce)

would it be wrong of such a land owner to accept a person as a slave in exchange for housing and food rather then cash?

I dont believe it is.

How are we defining "Slave" here?

If it is according to the bible then I think it's okay. There is nothing wrong with hitting a human being with a rod to the inch of his life so long s/he survives.

I don't understand why people would like slaves though, they are very lazy objects and those worthless things even whine. What other piece of property whines anyways? [/sarcasm]

 

[Pegg]

how about things in the New Testament though?

I feel fine in passing over much of the OT as it seems to be more foundational in approach, but why did Jesus tell people to respect their master?

basically because Jesus was not trying to change human society and culture.

Jesus was calling people out of an existing society to join him in a new kingdom. And under that kingdom, love was to be the motivational factor.

Slave owners who became christians would have treated their slaves (which could be a person indebted to the owner) in the spirit of love, and therefore the slavery would not have been cruel or tyrannical under such a slave owner.
Ephesians 6:9 Also, YOU masters, keep doing the same things to them, letting up on the threatening, for YOU know that the Master of both them and YOU is in the heavens, and there is no partiality with him.

and slaves who became christians were to show proper respect for their masters because respect of authority is tantamount in Christianity.
Colossians 3:22 YOU slaves, be obedient in everything to those who are [your] masters in a fleshly sense, not with acts of eye-service, as men pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, with fear of Jehovah. 23 Whatever YOU are doing, work at it whole-souled as to Jehovah, and not to men, 24 for YOU know that it is from Jehovah YOU will receive the due reward of the inheritance. SLAVE for the Master, Christ. 25 Certainly the one that is doing wrong will receive back what he wrongly did, and there is no partiality

 

[Me Myself]

I am sure they didn't need to be nedoctrinaterd to "respect" the person that is already able to hit them in the face with a rod. Or hit their wives and children...

 

[Pegg]

But that only applies if there ARE wages that are unpaid, in slavery there are no wages, thus this is not a comment on immoral use of slavery, instead it is a comment on refusing to pay the people you EMPLOY, free men, not slaves.

well there are actually two types of worker mentioned in the verse

by use of his fellowman who serves for nothing, meaning 'slaves'

and whose wages he does not give him meaning those who work for wages.

But you need to take into consideration that all slave owners were required to provide food, clothing and shelter for a slave...even wives were provided to slaves if the slave wanted a wife. So that is the compensation in lieu of a monetary wage and can be considered a wage of sorts.

 

[Me Myself]

Wife is not a very appropriate term though, because if they provided wives the slaves couldn't leave the masters with the wives or the kids from the union.

It would be more appropriate to say that they were provided the "things" they needed. Including other slaves. Them having women to have sex with if they needed such only meant they were leaving some kids to the master so they can be slaves like daddy was too. I say was supposing daddy can leave after his services even though he knows he would have to leave the things that the master lend to him (like the women) and the product of the Master's things (the kids of course)

 

[Kerr]

I think its entirely possible for some forms of slavery to exist which were of benefit the slave. Extremely poor people who could not feed their families or who fell into debt and could not repay it could become a slave to the person they were indebted to so as to repay the debt and feed the family.

but under Isreals laws, the slaves were to go free after repaying the debt and the maximum amount of time a person could be a slave was for 7 years... unless the slave chose to remain as a slave to the master of the house.

Slavery is not required for that. You can work of a dept without being someones property.

 

[arthra]

Hey guys I worked pretty hard on my post above:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2863597-post25.html

Any one care to comment?

 

[zenzero]

Friend nnmartin,

Slavery - yes or no?

Most of us are *slaves* of our own desires.
It surely is a no no provided you know you have a choice and have evaluated the other option seriously!

Love & rgds