I like Rousas Rushdoony’s take on the question - biblically speaking, slavery is a bad thing that should nevertheless be tolerated in certain circumstances as the lesser of two evils.
It should first be pointed out that hereditary chattel slavery - like we had in the Antebellum South - wasn’t biblical slavery. The OT had a number of limitations on slavery that related to Jews. But those limitations should apply to any Christian by extension. They included a seven year term and the care for elderly slaves. Biblical slavery is more like a definite-term labor contract that could be specifically enforced.
None of those protections applied to negro slavery in the old South, which was more like the institution that St. Paul knew and dealt with in Philemon. Even that unbiblical, chattel slavery was to be tolerated, while understanding that the institution was inconsistent with the dignity of Christians who are saved before God.
So, I’m a Catholic, but I find Rushdoony’s take on the issue quite convincing. Rushdoony compares it to polygyny - it’s a bad thing overall, but it should be tolerated under certain conditions as the lesser of two evils.
I’d also like to say that we have, technically speaking, slavery in the United States. After all, we can draft young men and women to serve in the military. That’s involuntary servitude by definition. We also have prisons. Again, involuntary servitude. Both of these forms of slavery are allowed and I think most would agree that they’re necessary under certain circumstances. The main thing for our Constitution is that due process be followed. Neither form is anything like unlimited chattel slavery as we had in the South for that reason. It’s subject to limitations and applies only to the state. If it is, then liberty can be taken by the state but not by any other.
But there is also another kind of slavery that is chattel slavery that we have with us today. Unbiblical, chattel slavery is when one person (or class of persons) is given over to another person (or class of persons) for the unlimited use by that other person. Abortion on demand fits this definition to a “tee”. With abortion on demand, one class of human being (unborn babies) are given over to another class of persons (pregnant women), who may do with them as they please, including killing them. That is chattel slavery at its worst.
In sum, some limited forms of involuntary servitude are biblically allowed. Chattel slavery is not biblical, although St. Paul tolerated it (although he certainly would have condemned the murder of a slave by a master). Abortion on demand is the worst form of chattel slavery, since it entails by definition the murder of the slave by the master.
Theological discussion about slavery can be confusing, at least to me. Plenty of theologians would have answered the question about why God allows evil with the response that God needed us to take responsibility for our lives and actions.
But when asked about slavery, those same theologians would have responded that if God or Jesus didn't say anything against slavery, it must be right and could only be ended in God's own time. Is there a contradiction there?
Not to be unreasonably suspicious, but a person joins a few weeks ago, and starts a thread trying to get Freepers to agree that slavery isn’t evil?
Yes it’s evil. The individual has rights. Only some form of a collectivist can justify slavery.
It all really depends on whether you are the slave or the master doesn’t it?
is everything in the bible translated 100% correct? No. Is it evil to try and use a holy book to justify a very evil practice that is enslaving so many Sudanese innocents and murdering their men? Yes. I challenge the author to read the book by Mr. Bok “ Escape from Slavery” And then come back and answer his own question. And, I ask, if he were to be enslaved against his will would he then consider it evil? Of course he would!
But racially based slavery was condemned by the pope in 1430’s...POW slaves yes, enslaving others because of race no...
In the days when starvation was a real issue, some poor men sold themselves into slavery in the ancient world...similar to Chinese selling their girls into slavery during famines...
And it required the master to care for his slaves when they were sick...unlike the good Brits who threw out the Irish and destroyed their houses when the potato famine came and they couldn't pay rent, and then ignored them when they died on the side of the road.
Ironically, the slaves of ancient Rome had more civil right than those of the American south...and a freedman's son actually became an emperor.