Bible Slavery v. American Slavery

[Recusant]

If civil war slave owners had said that they were divenely justified in owning slaves or if they had found some scriptural basis for legitimately owning people, would that make any difference? 

Do you consider it to be wrong to own slaves nowadays?

Civil war slave owners were not Biblical Israelites, so such an argument coming from them would complete bolonga.

There are no Biblical Israelites on the planet.  Shall we then dismiss all of the Old Testament as no longer applicable?  That would be fine with me. 

[Crow]

What is your stance on slavery? as the bible is quite clear that it is acceptable. In my opinion it is one of, if not the most immoral action a person can partake in.

Edit: not only is slavery acceptable in the bible but endorsed in the new and old testaments.

I can understand your interpretation of Paul's account on slavery. Instructing slave's to be obedient to their masters and masters to treat slaves in fairness. It's clear Paul acknowledges  slavery as it was in his time, which is was a cultural norm. However, there is a difference between Paul "failing to condemn" and "accept".

But Christianity "endorsing" slavery? How many slaves did Jesus have?

Christianity is much more than the supposed word of Jesus (that's presuming he existed). If Christianity was actually based solely on the words and actions of the man then it would be a very different religion but with no way of knowing what the man was supposed to have said or done the main basis for the christian faith is the bible and that is much more than just the gospels.

On the note of how did Christianity endorse slavery that is quite obvious. To include passages that refer to the treatment of slaves that is an endorsement, it isn't objecting or remaining passive it's accepting the idea and also giving guidelines on the treatment of those slaves. The editors of the christian cannon had the opportunity to omit those words concerning slavery but decided to include them. Now think about this, if Christianity had opposed slavery do you think the Atlantic slave trade would have still taken place?

[Whitney]

However, there is a difference between Paul "failing to condemn" and "accept".

When we are talking about people who are looked to for moral guidance, isn't there a problem if they witness something that we would consider morally objectionable yet they didn't say anything to condemn the practice?

[xSilverPhinx]

I don't really know enough to say, but hopefully somebody better versed in the bible can clarify: didn't Jesus himself say that he didn't want to replace the old testament and old Jewish laws but rather validate them?

[Whitney]

I don't really know enough to say, but hopefully somebody better versed in the bible can clarify: didn't Jesus himself say that he didn't want to replace the old testament and old Jewish laws but rather validate them?

here are a few translations of the verse you are thinking of - Matt 5:17:

New International Version (©1984)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version (©2001)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

source and even more translations http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm

[xSilverPhinx]

I don't really know enough to say, but hopefully somebody better versed in the bible can clarify: didn't Jesus himself say that he didn't want to replace the old testament and old Jewish laws but rather validate them?

here are a few translations of the verse you are thinking of - Matt 5:17:

New International Version (©1984)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version (©2001)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

source and even more translations http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm

That's what I was talking about

[Cforcerunner]

The highlighted element of your reply indicates that the actions of Jesus trump Christian dogma and doctrine. Is this your position?

It absolutely is  
Well, I believe good doctrine comes from Jesus/the gospels rather than tradition.

Christianity is much more than the supposed word of Jesus (that's presuming he existed). If Christianity was actually based solely on the words and actions of the man then it would be a very different religion but with no way of knowing what the man was supposed to have said or done the main basis for the christian faith is the bible and that is much more than just the gospels.

Skeptics make a completely reasonable objection to many Christians who claim to be "selective" when it comes to what they believe in. But the same can also be said of what skeptics are skeptical of. One who has done the slightest bit of research on the historical Jesus, would know that such a figure is widely accepted within the field of 1st century historians.

On the note of how did Christianity endorse slavery that is quite obvious. To include passages that refer to the treatment of slaves that is an endorsement, it isn't objecting or remaining passive it's accepting the idea and also giving guidelines on the treatment of those slaves. The editors of the christian cannon had the opportunity to omit those words concerning slavery but decided to include them. Now think about this, if Christianity had opposed slavery do you think the Atlantic slave trade would have still taken place?

I'll say this, it is unfortunate that American slave advocates selectively interpreted Paul's words for their own political agenda. That being said, it's clear that Paul is acknowledging slavery as it was during the 1st century, as being a normal social class within the roman empire. If Paul lived during the feudal era, and acknowledged the existence of peasants and how knights should treat them fairly. Would this mean Paul strongly advocates peasants being part of bottom society and subtly asserts the social advantages and necessity of peasantry?

[xSilverPhinx]

When you put in historical context it makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is when theists say that god himself (the source of morality) endorsed slavery (if you go by what's written in the bible).

[Cforcerunner]

When you put in historical context it makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is when theists say that god himself (the source of morality) endorsed slavery (if you go by what's written in the bible).

God Himself, Why do you believe that? Which scriptures are you referring to?

[xSilverPhinx]

When you put in historical context it makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is when theists say that god himself (the source of morality) endorsed slavery (if you go by what's written in the bible).

God Himself, Why do you believe that? Which scriptures are you referring to?

Here. From Lev 25:39 onwards.

Apparently the rule that said that the "slaves" that were allowed to go free after 7 years was only valid for Israelite slaves, as the other following passages show, and not for people of other nations.

[Cforcerunner]

When you put in historical context it makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is when theists say that god himself (the source of morality) endorsed slavery (if you go by what's written in the bible).

God Himself, Why do you believe that? Which scriptures are you referring to?

Here. From Lev 25:39 onwards.

Apparently the rule that said that the "slaves" that were allowed to go free after 7 years was only valid for Israelite slaves, as the other following passages show, and not for people of other nations.

First off, I HIGHLY recommend reading NASB translations over King James (Though this may of just been by default, I will mention it regardless).

But yes, this is from the Law of the Old Testament. This is a very good question, not for the Christian, but for the modern Jew. I have no idea why they have been slacking on their animal sacrifices lately and have ceased throwing stones at one another (I say this in a joking manner, but a serious question for any jewish folks on the forum).

Anyways I will briefly go beyond your question and answer what you and many are likely pondering...What does it mean when Jesus states his goal of not "abolishing, but fulfilling the law". There are many instances which He clearly contradicts Jewish ordinance (healing on the sabbath, pardoning an adulteress from being stone, associating himself with unclean commoners, ect.), So there are a few theological interpretations that you can take away from this. Jesus' teaching and understanding of the underlining meaning beyond the law superseded that of Jewish tradition, or Jewish tradition may of been appropriate/practical for it's time, and  no longer became necessary once Jesus came onto the scene.

I wouldn't consider myself smart enough (until I save up enough dollars for seminary )  to really dig deeply into this. But I will give my two cents. I would say Jesus understood God's law more deeply than any other human (very obvious for one who is Christian). And one of the biggest revelation of Jesus (and Christianity) was his utter disapproval for a legalistic approach toward the law. He basically concluded that virtually everyone is guilty according to it's ridiculous standards (if you hate your brother, is it equivalent to murder, lusting equivalent to adultery, ect.). In addition, he taught that by only following the first two commandments, loving your God with all your heart/ loving your neighbor as yourself is all that is needed, and obedience to the rest of the law will follow suit.
In essence He is stating that morality lies in the big picture rather than the details. A condition of the heart, and not of individual actions/laundry list of good deeds.  

[history_geek]

But yes, this is from the Law of the Old Testament. This is a very good question, not for the Christian, but for the modern Jew. I have no idea why they have been slacking on their animal sacrifices lately and have ceased throwing stones at one another (I say this in a joking manner, but a serious question for any jewish folks on the forum).

So, Leviticus is in effect for christians when the talk is about gay rights, but when its about slavery it's the jews problem. It's true, god works in mysterious ways, as evindent by the creatures he made in his own image....

Sorry, I'm in a highly sarcastic mood today, and I've been watching this go on for a while now. And I'm starting get tired of laughing at people who think there are different kinds of slavery that are defined if its mentioned and specified by religion or not....*headdesk* Slavery is slavery, no if's, but's or maybe's. And YHWH was obviosuly in favour of it. And his one of the three sides of the christian god, so there's no running away from it. Sorry.

[xSilverPhinx]

History_geek is right, if Jesus disapproved of the OT's legalistic approach, then whatever scriptures  supporting anti-gay rights should be thrown out the window as well and seen as the moral zeitgeist (which literally means 'spirit of the time' or something like that) of their time. If people are going to cherry-pick, then at least be consistent (and those who don't would probably get thrown into jail ).

As for the Jews, it's another example of how the legalistic/historical record makes sense only in a historical context, but not as anything coming from a perfect source of objective morality.

But even so, it's written as if god himself condones slavery of people of other nations:

39 'If a [a]countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 40 He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 41 He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 42 For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 43 You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. [/b]46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [c]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

But I'm not going to get into whether these passages are valid from a Christian's POV, because I don't know nearly as much as I should. Truth is, the OT is also part of the book that Christian's call scripture and Christians are basing personal justifications for outdated notions on the OT.

[Cforcerunner]

But I'm not going to get into whether these passages are valid from a Christian's POV, because I don't know nearly as much as I should. Truth is, the OT is also part of the book that Christian's call scripture and Christians are basing personal justifications for outdated notions on the OT.

Not sure where you are going with this, what do you mean by Christians using the OT for "personal justifications"?

[Sweetdeath]

I think OT is Old Testament.