Posted on 05/31/2009 9:26:02 AM PDT by Freepmanchew
The topic of slavery is usually accompanied by bitter feelings and condemnation for Americas past. Like America, many civilizations have used slavery as a means of providing labor. Samarian drawings on clay tablets dating back to 4000 BC show captives taken in battle being tied, whipped, and forced to work. Then there are ancient papyrus manuscripts from 2100 BC that record the ownership of slaves by private citizens in Egypt. The earliest mention of slavery in the Bible would be Genesis 9:25 when Noah cursed the descendants of Canaan. From Abraham on down we read of the men in the Bible owning slaves and the Israelites themselves becoming slaves, but never do we read of God condemning slavery. We do read of Him telling Moses how to treat slaves in Exodus chapter 21, but neither God nor Jesus ever condemned the practice.
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
The Church in the West, not surprisingly, was the biggest proponent of slavery. In the 15th century, the pope signed a bull allowing hereditary slavery for all nonbelievers! Thus, western Christianity played a major role in advancing and perpetuating slavery.
Not really. Slavery was abolished, but the concept of enslaving one person in the service of another continues. When I am forced at gunpoint (because all tax laws ultimately come down to a squad of jack-booted thugs aiming their German SMGs at the person that refuses to pay) to hand over a signficant portion of my earnings to the government so that the money can be given to people that didn’t work for it, that’s slavery.
When this is mentioned, someone always makes the argument that taxes are voluntary because I could choose to earn less than the threshold for paying taxes, but that is not an option for most people.
At least the southern plantation owners had some stake in the health of their slaves. After all, they paid for them, housed them, fed them. The modern-day plantation owner (the government and welfare class) think of their tax-slaves as disposable property.
Slavery is evil, but it far from over.
I understand and agree with the reality that lesser forms, and the implied form here, of slavery exist today. I view the oppression as evil. Concerning this thread. Much of slavery discussed was a result of warfare and debt. The biblical reality of enslavement to prevent future attacks and debtor’s prison and imprisonment has, thankfully, been rendered (in most cases) unnecessary. Times have changed. If we abide by the biblical rules of enslavement for debt, we would all be slaves in this country. How much do we Americans owe per household? Over a half million.
When I retired at the early age of 59 I was half a slave. I was probably **more** than half a slave if all the hidden sales taxes, fees, and assesments were calculated in.
OK...So,...We still have the freedom to play the role of John Galt. ( In my case “Jane” Galt)...But...If the government can make a citizen more than half a slave, this government already has the power to make us 100% slaves.
You miss my point completely. I was comparing the argument that God is ok with slavery because Jesus didn’t specifically condemn it is the same as the argument that God is ok with homosexuality because Jesus didn’t specifically condemn it.
I reject both arguments.
Is Slavery Evil?
As long as your any color but WHITE !
While often presented as barbaric in contrast to the “liberating” but destructive (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html) of the ethos of the 60’s+ sexual revolution/rebellion, the moral Mosiac law and its penalties, actually worked to promote stronger and happier families and prevent needless loss of life. Slavery was regualated an an established institution, and served to keep enemies in subjection, while providing a means to deliver the Israelites out of debt, as they sold themselves in slavery in such a case (imagine GM), but were given release with generous “severance pay” (if they wanted it) after 6 years, to get them back on their feet. They also got their original land back due to debt, in case they had sold it, on the 50th year. (Liberals have a different idea.)
Non-Israelites could actually own Hebrew slaves, but when bought as slaves it and their descendants were for life, but they rested on the 7th day and had less work on the 7th year, and were partakers in the covenant of Abraham, being circumscribed and being part of the religious observances. Loss of such as a tooth would win them freedom, and murder of them was a likely a capital crime, and it was forbidden to return an escaped slave. All of which made it conducive to fair treatment.
Under the New Testament, the primitive church as a model organic community had no slavery (Acts 2:41-47), but it grew within a society in which Christians had little to no political power to change laws and were in fact persecuted, and opposition would have made it worse for the slaves. But while slavery as an economic practice was tolerated (and keeping one servicefully employed is needful, and is better than indolence or poverty), it was required of Masters, “give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven” (Col. 4:1), and mistreatment was forbidden (Eph. 6:9), and even the escaped slave Onesimus was to be treated as a brother, not a servant, if indeed he should be required back at all (Philemon v. 16).
Moreover, slaves were encouraged to obtain freedom if they lawfully could get it (1Cor. 7:21).
Such requirements to masters to give unto slaves just and equal pay and good treatment in the fear of God, and to accept them as brothers — and all that such entails — effectively disemboweled classical slavery, and would reduce it to more of an employer - employee type relationship, with the liberty to obtain the freedom (which even non-Christian wives were allowed), as this what the apostle Paul exhorted (1 Cor. 7:21).
The requirements of slaves owners in the N.T. would disallow the harsh treatment so often associated with slavery, and the preference to gain freedom indicates the opposite of an advocation of bondage, and it seems incongruous that one could receive a Christian slave as a brother and yet not offer him freedom. As the practice of slavery seems so antithetical by nature to the second [[Great Commandment]], esp. at least as was common practiced, the regulation of it rather than an outright repudiation of it by the church - in which all races are spiritually one (Gal 3:28), and which as an organic community had no slavery (Acts 2:41-47)- appears problematic.
But the early tolerance of slavery by the infant church might be understood that realizing that unless a slave was not able to obtain freedom, applying the requirements of equal pay and fair and merciful Christian treatment enable slavery to morally exist without a radical change in the economic model or society, and that Christians existed within a society in which they had little to no political power to change laws, and were in fact themselves often persecuted, and opposition to slavery at that time likely would have made it worse for the slaves. Instead, the primitive church, much of which was made up of slaves, focused on freeing souls from spiritual bondage and being a “holy nation” themselves. Later, the church became more institutionalized, and the people largely Biblically illiterate, though officially most of her time the Catholic church did condemn slavery. The more modern influence of Christians in influencing the abolition of slavery was much a result of the outworking of the Reformation and the evangelical second Great Awakening and the freedom to effect political change, and statesmen who were likeminded toward abolition and even equality (which was seldom initially the same).
Such resulted in evangelical Christians being the driving force behind the abolition movement in America, while Christian William Wilberforce labored purposely to outlaw slavery in England. “American Christians took it upon themselves to reform society during this period. Known commonly as antebellum reform, this phenomenon includes reforms in temperance, women’s rights, abolitionism, and a multitude of other questions and problems faced by society.”
“The Second Great Awakening (1800–1830s) was the second great religious revival in United States history and consisted of renewed personal salvation experienced in revival meetings. Major leaders included Charles Grandison Finney, Lyman Beecher, Barton Stone, Peter Cartwright, and James B. Finley. It also encouraged an eager effervescent evangelicalism that later reappeared in American life in causes dealing with prison reform, temperance, women’s suffrage, and the crusade to abolish slavery.” — http://www.answers.com/topic/second-great-awakening
See also http://columba11.blogspot.com/2007/02/christianity-abolishes-slavery.html
But the greater bondage, freedom from which is to be the primary concern of a true church, is that of bondage to sin, which finally will make one far more miserable than physical slavery. Ultimately, “sin will take you were you did not want to go, keep you longer than you wanted to stay, and cost you more than you wanted to pay.”
And everyone serves something or someone. Jesus Christ, who served others selflessly and sinlessly day and night, and then took responsibility for our sins and paid for them with His own precious blood, and who now reigns in Heaven, is the only One that can save sinners from their master, the devil.
Thus, western Christianity played a major role in advancing and perpetuating slavery.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Toadies licking the boots of European warlords played a major role in slavery.
When the bible was widely printed and read, agitation for the end of slavery came about amazingly quickly. The demand for reform ( not only slavery) but of the abuses of the warlords and their religious toadies rose up spontaneously from the common people.
It is Christianity and it scriptures, when freely available to all, that tames warlords, promotes freedom, trust in your neighbor, and encourages respect for all people as children of God equal in His sight.
Depends on the type of slavery. Not all slavery is as brutal or race based as what we had in America. Classical Greek and Roman slavery was pretty much employment, not necessarily pleasant employment but basically a job, and with a path out. But once slavery became tied to some belief of superiority of one race over another it definitely became evil.
Most Freepers spend a good chunk of the year laboring involuntarily for the government and its beneficiaries.
How can slavery be condemned when it can hardly be defined?
In a way, it is like prostitution, where two legal acts, sex and exchanging money, are combined to create an illegal act.
Every part of slavery could be involuntary or voluntary, despised or enjoyed, cruel or kind, exploitative or generous, negative or positive. It can be like prison, or it can be like employment.
Slaves are not exclusively unpaid, some are paid handsomely. Nor are slaves defined by their masters, as even other slaves may be their overseers or masters.
Ambrose Bierce defined “marriage” as: n: the state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making in all, two.
There is even a philosophy for slavery, as a form of proto-socialism. That holds slavery up as being the ideal state of the vast majority of mankind. The slave as free to lead a life unburdened by responsibility beyond following orders. Provided the necessities of life in exchange for servitude.
See George Fitzhugh’s book, “Cannibals All!: Or Slaves Without Masters”.
Mastery can be very different from Tyranny. A skilled and expert First Sergeant may be beloved by “his” privates, who are, in effect, his servants, even unto death.
And it has been noted that a tyrant cannot function without the willing cooperation of his slaves. If the slaves resist the tyrant, he must use so much of his strength to control them, that he is drained.
With so many dynamics, how can slavery be condemned? Easily!
The state and government know slavery well, because they maintain a monopoly over it. They can draft citizens as soldiers, and send criminals to prison, and confine the mentally ill and communicably diseased. They can take the wealth of their citizens through taxes. And most certainly, government can and will use force to get its way.
Children are legally slaves to both their parents and the state, and can be deprived of their civil liberties with the stroke of a pen. In effect, they are chattels.
Yet the government, and the citizenry, know slavery when they see it, and are not persuaded by rhetoric.
“Each year, an estimated 14,500 to 17,500 foreign nationals are trafficked into the United States. The number of U.S. citizens trafficked within the country each year is even higher, with an estimated 200,000 American children at risk for trafficking into the sex industry. (U.S. Department of Justice. 2004. Report to Congress from Attorney General John Ashcroft on U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons in Fiscal Year 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.)”
“At least the southern plantation owners had some stake in the health of their slaves. After all, they paid for them, housed them, fed them. The modern-day plantation owner (the government and welfare class) think of their tax-slaves as disposable property.
Slavery is evil, but it far from over.”
Good point!
So, where did you copy that from, interesting as it almost says the same thing the article of this thread says, just differently.
The alternative would be starvation. In such a case, what would YOU prefer: to starve to death on the street, or to become somebody's slave for seven years. Remember, the prospective slave had the option, by simply going hungry rather than borrowing the money to feed himself, knowing the consequences if he did not pay up.
The other main avenue for becoming a slave was to be on the losing side in a war. Once again, if you were in such a position, what would be your preference: to be a slave, or to be killed? Remember, those were generally the only choices.
Did you even read the article, he wrote most of what you said in it.
I agree with you, and think it won't be too much longer; perhaps in our lifetimes. One of the things driving it will be libertarian thought that claims we "own" our bodies. My sentiment has always been that no one can have ownership vested in another human being. If, however, we have a property right vested in ourselves does not imply that we have a right to dispose of ourselves by selling, or transferring, that right to another person?
The first step toward slavery will be, I predict, the return of gladiatorial contests to the death, willingly engaged in by the contestants.
The N.T. advocates obtaining freedom if possible, and the whole ethos of the N.T. requires not simply just pay and equal treatment of slaves, (Col. 4:1) but moreover, treating them as you would have yourself treated. Some may argue that the full abolition of slavery is more conducive to the application of the whole ethos of the N.T. than even a greatly ameliorated form of servitude, yet in marriage and in the military a form of slavery may be said to exist, even only for a limited time in the latter, and great requirements made in the former.
The question is, would not even the O.T. economic system in which citizen debtors sold themselves or were sold into slavery for 6 years, with severance pay, be better off than welfare? At least you would, or should, feel that you were earning your keep, rather than being treated like a victim who is unable to make it, and which often leads to depression and drugs, and which form of slavery the liberal establishment largely fosters, and gets elected off of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.