57
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

 
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 10:01 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."
Leviticus 25:44ff

Leviticus is the LAW.

Leviticus is Old Testament, which also allowed divorce. When Jesus was asked specifically about divorce, he said the following:
Quote:

Matthew 19
7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8Jesus answered, “It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”…

Jesus also stopped them from stoning a woman for committing adultery. So it is not correct to say that Jesus condoned everything allowed by the Old Testament.

Quote:
Here is what Jesus says about the LAW:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE."
Matthew 5: 17ff

So He didn't want Holy Spirit to become a rationalization for people who just wanted to abolish the law for political reasons. That's understandable.

Quote:
Here is what Paul said condoning slavery:

"All under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect...Those slaves whose masters are brothers in the faith must not take liberties with them on that account. they must perform their tasks even more faithfully, since those who will profit from their work are believers and beloved brothers."
1 Timothy 6:1ff

This is why I have said that what is described as 'slavery' then was more akin to what wage labor is now.

Quote:
"To slaves I say, obey your human masters perfectly, not with the purpose of attracting attention and pleasing men, but in all sincerity and our of reverence for the Lord."
Colossians 3:22

This is not condoning slavery. It is telling people who are enslaved how to live righteously within a subjugated position.

Quote:
"You slave owners, deal justly and fairly with your slaves..."
Colossians 4:1

Again, not condoning slavery but telling people who own slaves how to behave righteously as slave holders.

I have a friend who is vegan who asks, "humane slaughter?" when PETA recommends guidelines for more humane slaughter in the meat industry. From one perspective, all slaughter is inhumane and from another there is a more humane way to do it. If you would assume that PETA wouldn't prefer to abolish all meat consumption and thus animal slaughter completely, just because they prescribe guidelines for more humane slaughter, you'd be misinterpreting the reason for the guidelines.

Quote:
"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters. They should try to please them in every way, not contradicting them nor stealing from them, but expressing a constant fidelity by their conduct, so as to adorn in every way possible the doctrine of God our Savior."
Titus 2:9

So he's telling slaves to turn the other cheek, not condoning slavery.

Quote:
"The general rule is that each one should lead the life the Lord has assigned him, continuing as he was when the Lord called him...Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery...."
1 Corinthians 7:17ff

This is about spiritually counseling people who are enslaved, not condoning/promoting the institution of slavery itself.

Quote:
In the Epistle, Philemon, Paul returns a slave (Onesimus) to his master (Philemon) and tells Philemon that although he (Paul) feels he has the right to command Philemon to free Onesimus, he would not do that, but would instead appeal to Philemon to do it on his own.

Christians are not supposed to exercise revolution by force but by winning over sinners to righteousness. So when it says, "although he feels he has the right to command him to free . . ." that implies that it is right to free him and not that it's right for him to go on being a slave.

Quote:
Anything else I can help you with about the Bible...just ask.

Can you see now that these passages you cite are not to condone slavery, although they deal with various ethics and spiritual issues regarding slaves and slavers?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 10:12 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."
Leviticus 25:44ff


Leviticus is the LAW.

Leviticus is Old Testament, which also allowed divorce. When Jesus was asked specifically about divorce, he said the following:
Quote:

Matthew 19
7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8Jesus answered, “It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”…

Jesus also stopped them from stoning a woman for committing adultery. So it is not correct to say that Jesus condoned everything allowed by the Old Testament.

Quote:
Here is what Jesus says about the LAW:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE."
Matthew 5: 17ff

So He didn't want Holy Spirit to become a rationalization for people who just wanted to abolish the law for political reasons. That's understandable.

Quote:
Here is what Paul said condoning slavery:

"All under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect...Those slaves whose masters are brothers in the faith must not take liberties with them on that account. they must perform their tasks even more faithfully, since those who will profit from their work are believers and beloved brothers."
1 Timothy 6:1ff

This is why I have said that what is described as 'slavery' then was more akin to what wage labor is now.

Quote:
"To slaves I say, obey your human masters perfectly, not with the purpose of attracting attention and pleasing men, but in all sincerity and our of reverence for the Lord."
Colossians 3:22

This is not condoning slavery. It is telling people who are enslaved how to live righteously within a subjugated position.

Quote:
"You slave owners, deal justly and fairly with your slaves..."
Colossians 4:1

Again, not condoning slavery but telling people who own slaves how to behave righteously as slave holders.

I have a friend who is vegan who asks, "humane slaughter?" when PETA recommends guidelines for more humane slaughter in the meat industry. From one perspective, all slaughter is inhumane and from another there is a more humane way to do it. If you would assume that PETA wouldn't prefer to abolish all meat consumption and thus animal slaughter completely, just because they prescribe guidelines for more humane slaughter, you'd be misinterpreting the reason for the guidelines.

Quote:
"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters. They should try to please them in every way, not contradicting them nor stealing from them, but expressing a constant fidelity by their conduct, so as to adorn in every way possible the doctrine of God our Savior."
Titus 2:9

So he's telling slaves to turn the other cheek, not condoning slavery.

Quote:
"The general rule is that each one should lead the life the Lord has assigned him, continuing as he was when the Lord called him...Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery...."
1 Corinthians 7:17ff

This is about spiritually counseling people who are enslaved, not condoning/promoting the institution of slavery itself.

Quote:
In the Epistle, Philemon, Paul returns a slave (Onesimus) to his master (Philemon) and tells Philemon that although he (Paul) feels he has the right to command Philemon to free Onesimus, he would not do that, but would instead appeal to Philemon to do it on his own.

Christians are not supposed to exercise revolution by force but by winning over sinners to righteousness. So when it says, "although he feels he has the right to command him to free . . ." that implies that it is right to free him and not that it's right for him to go on being a slave.

Quote:
Anything else I can help you with about the Bible...just ask.

Can you see now that these passages you cite are not to condone slavery, although they deal with various ethics and spiritual issues regarding slaves and slavers?


So you are saying Jesus was a liar when he said he was not here to change the law.

Okay.

But even atheists don't say mean things about Jesus.

Get a grip, man.

As for the other nonsense...

...you are so far in denial...I feel sorry for you.

Jesus obviously did not condemn slavery...and the reason he did not seems to be that the god he worshiped said there was nothing wrong with slavery.

Go do your thing. I'll just ignore you.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 10:17 am
@livinglava,
LF said so too, but I am not the one who condone slavery, nor am I saying much on behalf of our good buddy Jesus, who can very well speak for himself, I would think. No, if someone is condoning slavery -- which goes against basic human rights -- by equating it with more benign forms of labor contracts, it's you guys.

If you say that slavery is not so bad or not so different from modern forms of exploitation, then my answer is by all means walk the talk, and try it out for yourself. Then you will be speaking from experience. Don't take it as an insult....

Or am I to understand that you were not talking personally, but about certain other categories of people, supposedly unable to rule themselves?... Is that what you're saying? That for some other people (of a darker complexion perhaps) slavery isn't such a bad fate, but of course not for you and your children?
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 10:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying Jesus was a liar when he said he was not here to change the law.

No, I don't think that was His purpose in coming here.

Quote:

As for the other nonsense...

...you are so far in denial...I feel sorry for you.

You are in denial of what these scriptural verses you quote actually mean.

Quote:
Jesus obviously did not condemn slavery...and the reason he did not seems to be that the god he worshiped said there was nothing wrong with slavery.

If Paul didn't see anything wrong with slavery, why did he say he should free Onesimus?
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 10:23 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

LF said so too, but I am not the one who condone slavery, nor am I saying much on behalf of our good buddy Jesus, who can very speak for himself, I would think. No, if someone is condoning slavery -- which goes against basic human rights -- by equating it with more benign forms of labor contracts, it's you guys.

You're misunderstanding the whole point because you are whitewashing forms of labor/economics that aren't feudal slavery. When Jesus told the rich man that if he wanted to be perfect he would have to give up all his possessions, He was setting an impossibly high standard of righteousness, which was nonetheless a true standard.

Quote:
If you say that slavery is not so bad or not so different from modern forms of exploitation, then my answer is by all means walk the talk, and try it out for yourself. Then you will be speaking from experience. Otherwise you are being crassly condescending towards generations upon generations of slaves by belittling their suffering from a position of privilege.

I don't know who is saying "that slavery is not so bad." You are assuming that Jesus would condone modern forms of labor exploitation and/or that He condoned slavery, when all He did was to reach out to all people spiritually, whether slave or free.

Quote:
Or am I to understand that you were not talking personally, but about certain other categories of people, supposedly unable to rule themselves?... Of a darker complexion perhaps? Is that what you're saying?

Jesus didn't make any racial distinctions regarding salvation or who was a sinner. We are all sinners in need of salvation.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 10:45 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
When Jesus told the rich man that if he wanted to be perfect he would have to give up all his possessions, He was setting an impossibly high standard of righteousness, which was nonetheless a true standard. 

It's not at all impossibly high. Many people have done it through the ages. And he didn't tell the guy to free his slaves anyway, so it's not relevant.

Quote:
who is saying "that slavery is not so bad." 

Those who equate it to wagged labor or say it's not that different.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 11:02 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
When Jesus told the rich man that if he wanted to be perfect he would have to give up all his possessions, He was setting an impossibly high standard of righteousness, which was nonetheless a true standard. 

It's not at all impossibly high. Many people have done it through the ages. And he didn't tell the guy to free his slaves anyway, so it's not relevant.

He said to give up all possessions, which would include slaves.

How do you not think it is impossibly high for most people? In modern wage-economies, we all enjoy the spoils of an economy that feeds on obliged labor. It's not like before the Civil War when businesses had to worry slaves could run away and live off the land. Nowadays, people can be paid and still not try to escape because they have debts and bills.

If you want to set the same standard Jesus set, try to get companies to give up all their debt paper on everything from cars to cell-phone contracts to mortgages and rental agreements. See what that does to the stock market, and show me all the people who are willing to see the stock market crash completely so that labor is no longer coerced but totally voluntary instead.

Quote:
Quote:
who is saying "that slavery is not so bad." 

Those who equate it to wagged labor or say it's not that different.

That is your interpretation. You are the one who is trying to divide sin into lesser and worse sin. While it may be true that some sins are worse than others, none are beyond the need for reform.

You and others in this thread are talking about condemnation for sin, when the point of Christianity is to forgive AND REFORM sinners to become slaves to righteousness.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 12:29 pm
@livinglava,
Jesus was never interested in economics, and not into economic policy. He was not a reformist, he thought the world was ending, which is probably why it didn't matter to him.

Note that to "give up" is different from "to free". If I give up something, i give it to someone else.

Quote:
trying to divide sin into lesser and worse sin.

Of course. What else is morality about?

livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 02:46 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Jesus was never interested in economics, and not into economic policy. He was not a reformist, he thought the world was ending, which is probably why it didn't matter to him.

Note that to "give up" is different from "to free". If I give up something, i give it to someone else.

Matthew 19 reads as follows:
Quote:
21Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”

22When the young man heard this, he went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth.

The assumption is clearly that the poor won't abuse what they receive when the rich man sells his possessions and gives to the poor.

You say that Jesus' teachings doesn't have any implications about how to live on an economic level, but it does and it has to do with people repenting sin and allowing God to change them for the better. It might not lead you right away to sell everything and give to the poor, but you will find a path in that direction, because there is a right way to live and we have to go through a lot of self-deception and rationalization as we struggle with what to do with our possessions and how to live in the world.

Quote:
Quote:
trying to divide sin into lesser and worse sin.

Of course. What else is morality about?

Confessing and repenting to God in order to receive reform from within through Holy Spirit. You will find that you will never transcend sin completely and become perfect while living in this world, but the awareness will humble you and you will do many things to become better out of gratitude for your salvation.

If you felt pride in yourself because your sins were less than someone else's, that would just be another sin to confess and repent.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 02:53 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
You're implying that Jesus validated slavery in some way.
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion when I was commenting on something a slave of Mohammed said.

Quote:
There's no support of any system. There is forgiveness for all sin, but that is not for the purpose of supporting any system in particular.
Yet another out of place comment. I was talking about how 'love thy neighbour as thyself' plays out in relation to actual slavery.

Your follow up comments seem based on these two out of place comments.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 03:01 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Here's the problem: if you say that it's only a sin to prioritize possessions, when what Jesus said was for the man to give all his possessions to the poor and follow Him, then you're trying to find a way to comply so that you won't be a sinner;
Not at all. I am recognising that also God made some bible characters rich. So my view is the explanation that makes sense of both sets of 'facts'.

I noticed also that you appear to have ignored my comment on me eating a meal with my own fork (which is a possession). The problem that arises with this example is even the most poor usually own a fork. So there is no call to give it away to them. Nor does anyone ever covet a fork etc. If owning a fork used to eat a meal is okay, then at what point does ownership of a thing become not okay - and for the bible, that point is when the prioritisation of the thing comes before God. Again = an explanation that makes sense.

I don't need to do any intent gymnastics to arrive at such conclusions - they are obvious conclusions that match both both known facts, and conundrums, in a forthright manner.
Quote:
In the case of Euro enslavement of Africans, we have this idea that the Africans captured were innocent victims of their captors/traffickers, but in the ancient world there was an idea that people became slaves through debt or criminality or war or some other situation where their own personal failure would have left them no choice but to beg for their lives, and then a slave master would have been saving their lives by giving them work to do in exchange for food, etc.

The beginnings of a better sort of answer.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 03:03 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
I was talking about how 'love thy neighbour as thyself' plays out in relation to actual slavery.

Apisa quoted a number of scriptural verses above that talk about ethics of slaves and slaveholders.

The way I explained it above is that it is like when PETA prescribes guidelines for ethical slaughter of livestock. It's not that PETA wouldn't rather everyone go 100% vegan, but they realize that's not going to happen any time soon, so they also make suggestions about how to reduce the suffering of livestock.

The point of talking about ethics for slaves and slaveholders isn't to legitimate slavery explicitly or implicitly. It's to show people that there is a way to become a better person in whatever role you are stuck in in this world of sin, which we are slowly gaining freedom from.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 03:13 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I’m assuming you were never taken involuntarily into an army, controlled 24/7, had to work under the most hazardous conditions and forced to kill other people who you knew Literally nothing about.

This happens in every kind of country, from lawless third world, to the 'civilized' USA.

You ******* bleeding hearts have no intellectual or emotional foundation to your pathetic ethics and artificial sensitivities.

Please report this post.

Edit. Consider this addressed to all.
Hello Leadfoot - this post was a reply to one of my posts...but by the last sentence, do you mean that wasn't addressed to me? Because if it is addressed to me - I don't see how it applies to anything I've said.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 03:30 pm
@livinglava,
To give a donkey to the poor is not the same thing as to free the donkey. Try and pretend you understand basic concepts, will you?

Forgiveness itself is based on assessing the extent and degree of a fault or sin, so it does not contradict anything I said. It is important yo be able to distinguish between small problems and big problems. To equivocate large and small sins is not Christian. Rather, it is evil.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2020 08:11 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

To give a donkey to the poor is not the same thing as to free the donkey. Try and pretend you understand basic concepts, will you?

I agree, which is why I point out that the story of the rich young man involves telling him to give up all his possessions and serve the poor, i.e. because the only way to eliminate the need for contract-labor is if people work voluntarily instead of for money. It is possible for all people to selflessly decide to voluntarily give their time and effort to helping others who don't pay, but highly unlikely outside of a total moral rebirth among all humankind. So until that total moral rebirth happens, we have to choose a path through the maze of sin that we have to work within to survive as best we can.

Quote:
Forgiveness itself is based on assessing the extent and degree of a fault or sin, so it does not contradict anything I said. It is important yo be able to distinguish between small problems and big problems. To equivocate large and small sins is not Christian. Rather, it is evil.

I'm not equivocating large and small sins. I'm trying to explain that you cannot be more forgivable because your sins are smaller because the point of Christianity is that Christ paid for all sins, great and small, and we have only to accept that it's not through anything we do as sinners, but by what Christ did on the cross, that we are forgiven and thus saved from sin.

So if you take the example of the rich young man who walked away rather than giving up all his possessions as Jesus suggested, he was not condemned for failing to do as Jesus said, nor was he exempted because he followed all the traditional commandments. Rather, like all sinners, he was forgiven and then his responsibility is to accept that he is forgiven/saved by a power beyond his own and thus allow himself to be redeemed and disciplined by submission to Holy Spirit, confessing and repenting sin before God as he becomes conscientious of it. So, for example, he might first see that he can live without so many houses, clothes, horses, or whatever, and later that he only needs one or two slaves as personal servants, and finally that he never needed personal servants at all because he can cook and clean for himself, etc. At that point, he has become a humble monk living in austere service to God, but it doesn't happen all at once. In fact, it might take many many generations between when a person first accepts Christ and when their future progeny choose to take a vow of poverty and live in total service to God. It doesn't mean that all those generations between weren't equally forgiven for sin, because they had to be for spiritual/moral progress to continue from one generation to the next. If someone would have said, "to hell with it all, I've never going to be forgiven because I can't live without X or Y," then that would jettison the whole long gradual process of sanctification. So the challenge is to accept the strides God allows us to make and to be patient that we and/or our future progeny would progress further in Christ than we have, and to be happy in knowing that we are saved and that God is redeeming us as 'works in progress.'
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2020 12:02 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
I'm not equivocating large and small sins.

Yes you were, and you were wrong. No amount of blah blah blah will change that.
nacredambition
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2020 12:37 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I’m assuming you were never taken involuntarily into an army, controlled 24/7, had to work under the most hazardous conditions and forced to kill other people who you knew Literally nothing about.
This happens in every kind of country, from lawless third world, to the 'civilized' USA.
You ******* bleeding hearts have no intellectual or emotional foundation to your pathetic ethics and artificial sensitivities.
Please report this post.
Edit. Consider this addressed to all.


0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2020 05:05 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I'm not equivocating large and small sins.

Yes you were, and you were wrong. No amount of blah blah blah will change that.

Instead of arguing with me about what I mean, you should try to understand it. Maybe something I wrote suggested the interpretation you are making, but I've told you why it's not relevant, and you don't want to grasp how lesser sins don't make you any more worthy of forgiveness/salvation than worse sins. Christ's purpose is to turn sinners around, not justify some as being less bad than others.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2020 05:31 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
Instead of arguing with me about what I mean, you should try to understand it. 

That describe you better than me. Jesus never said: "Big sin, small sin, same stuff, all forgiven, go right ahead and sin in peace." That seems to be your interpretation of his teaching, but it is wrong.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2020 05:54 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Instead of arguing with me about what I mean, you should try to understand it. 

That describe you better than me. Jesus never said: "Big sin, small sin, same stuff, all forgiven, go right ahead and sin in peace." That seems to be your interpretation of his teaching, but it is wrong.

Not "go right ahead and sin in peace," but all is indeed forgiven, but not for the sake of encouraging sin but rather to encourage people to serve the Holy Spirit of a loving heavenly father.
Quote:

Romans 6:1
Dead to Sin, Alive to God
1What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer?…

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 01:27:03