Slavery as a Christian Value

Post Reply New Topic

According to "This Article", none of the prophets or Jesus spoke or wrote anything against the institution of slavery.

The article does indicate that there was at least one Mosaic law that forbade the return of a runaway slave to his or her owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

However, in the Epistle to Philiemon, the apostle Paul violates this law by returning an escaped slave to his master. While in prison, Paul meets a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian (presumably Pheliemon). Rather than give the slave sanctuary, Paul returns him to his owner. Paul seems to hint that he would like Pheliemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not actually request it.

So, is the institution of slavery a Christan value or not?

I have little faith in NTs. The reason why slavery was abolished was because it became unprofitable. A better system is free range slaves. Slightly more happier and more productive. Let them create wealth then tax them. That way you don't have to micro manage their food or housing etc, just collect the money.

An even better system is to hire someone else's slaves in some other country ... and call it "Outsourcing" ...

A society full of pure wicked people never survived as it led to chaos, there wasn't any order.
A society full of kind logical people never survived as they was unwilling to violate other people
or take over their land.

But ignorance achieves what both of the other societies cannot. It allows great unity amongst the people,
and kindness and support. But it allows them to attack non nationals and other countries to acquire materiel
gain. Religion is a great tool for this and communism at a lesser extent.

Have you ever wondered why NTs are so anti science.

What culture didn't have slavery? Africans had slaves, Romans and Greeks had slaves, China had slaves.

Jewish law has a body of law for slaves, but it is fairly nice compared to slavery in other nations.

I'm not claiming that slavery is unique to Christianity, but that Christianity embraces slavery as one of its core values.

And while the laws may favor mercy toward slaves, in actual practice, the people would abuse and exploit their slaves, and consider them no more than disposable property.

Christianity is always made to embrace whatever the society it exists in wants it to.

If you criticize Christianity, I'll assume you are not a Christian. In this case, I'll give you some good advice: Let the silly interpret their own book as they will. You don't have to fight them on their own ground. You don't have to use their wrong method to find out that they are wrong. Be more critical.

How else are we to argue against their beliefs without pointing out how flawed or absurd their beliefs are? I know it doesn't work to do it by their rules, but still, how else should we do that?

In the old testament every seven years was a jubilee year and slaves were suppose to be freed after seven years service,whether or not this happened is debatable but if you were devout I suppose you would comply with Yahweh's request.At least you had some hope that one day you would be free.

This nation, with its Christian overtones, possesses a lovely welfare system. This I suppose is actually worse than slavery because at least in slavery, people are getting their basic necessities in exchange for material service to an organization. Whereas nowadays, people get more and more benefits in exchange for the simple act of human reproduction, which in turn doesn't benefit absolutely ANY person or group in the long run.

This all then creates a drain on "the middle rungs" of wealth, and makes everyone a slave to the wealthiest 1-5%, 99% of which happen to be Christian.

I make $90K a year and barely see a dollar of it. But these people would expect me to worship and believe in a bunch of "life lessons" starring questionable (and likely fictitious) characters that supposedly happened thousands of years ago??

Oppression is a core value of evolution. To say that some variant of it ISN'T a core value of almost every widely practiced belief system, is a total act of DENIAL.

Under Jewish law (Halakha) servitude is not chattel slavery. It is indenture.

The Master does not -own- his slave. He has a claim on his service for a limited period of time.

ruveyn

Pointing out how flawed their beliefs are is easy. You don't have to resort to biblical commentary. Let the Christians do that.

Have you read the Epistle to Philemon?

Paul says that he could order Philemon to do the right thing, but instead he's going to ask nicely. He does ask nicely, but makes it quite clear that Onesimus (the slave in question) is to be welcomed back with open arms and treated like a brother. He uses the phrase "no longer as a slave", and says "Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask." He says that if Onesimus owes him anything, to go ahead and charge it to me, and BTW, don't forget that you owe me.

Onesimus had apparently stolen something from Philemon and had run away, which under Roman law was punishable by death, and knowing the Romans, probably not a swift, painless death. Paul makes it very clear that that isn't an option, and neither is treating him harshly or punishing him. He doesn't actually say the words "free him", but does hint at it, and makes it clear that he would like to be impressed by Philemon's kindness towards his runaway slave.

Yes, I have; the entire Bible, in fact. Several times, from the Hebrew and the Greek. You?


And then he went ahead and return the slave to his master, thus violating Mosaic Law, and endorsing the institution of slavery.

On a related note, Paul also said that "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." (1st Corinthians 14:34, KJV). These words are accepted as doctrine in many Christian churches where women may only serve as deacons, Sunday-school teachers, and care-givers.

It takes only a single neural leap to conclude that since Paul's words are 'Law', his example is 'Law' as well.

Or is this a case of "Do as Paul says, but not as he does"? Paul did, after all, violate the 'Spirit' of the law that he seems to hold so dearly against women.


Intent counts for nothing. The Truth is in the act.

Onesimus was urged to go back to his master with a letter requesting that he be forgiven. He was not returned forcibly.

Details. Paul returned a slave to his master. Whether that slave went willingly or in chains is irrelevant. The point is that Paul did not denounce the institution of slavery, nor did Jesus Himself! In fact, both Jesus and Mosaic Law established rules for the treatment of slaves, as well.

Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:5-8, KJV:


Luke wrote (quoting Jesus) in Luke 12:47-48, KJV:


The following quotes are from Exodus 21:2-7.


Note that the 7th-year 'Jubilee' parole shall be given to a Hebrew slave. All others had to wait for the 50th-year 'Jubilee'.


Regardless of who fathered the children of a slave, the master owns them.


Thus, giving a slave a wife and letting them have children gives the master the advantage to use the slave's family as hostages for the slave's continued service.


Yes, it really is Biblically correct for a man to sell his daughters into slavery.

Thus, throughout the Bible, not only is approval for slavery given, but the 'proper' treatment of slaves is laid out.

For the record, I voted 'NO' in the attached poll, as I believe that slavery is an atrocity no matter which religion says otherwise.