Slavery, a Cultural, not Biblical Sin

[Edward429451]

I perceive, you have had some bad experiences. God bless you, as I see you are. Not easy to remain harmless as a dove once see truth in truth from God above, living on us Father and Son. Wanting us, me at least to understand to trust his lo ve and mercy to live through us, Luke 21:14-15 I am in process thanks form th at post reply

I do not know what you mean.

 

[Edward429451]

When does a human beings status change from just being a person , to being a slave ? What marks someone out as being a potential slave ? They r weak ? Homeless ? Penniless ? Intellectually inferior / uneducated ? Because someone appears to b deficient in some way ? Does that mean that we can take advantage of them ?
We must remember , God is real , alive , and knows all of our thoughts and words .

I'm pretty sure scripture says if you owe someone money you are their slave.

 

[Levib]

Forced slavery is generally regarded as wrong and likely always was. I believe the Jews were required to free any indebted (forced) slaves on the year of jubilee.

I think people can’t conceive voluntary slavery because we now refer to that as employment. Yet there are people that asked to be slaves in the Bible. Even Jacob voluntarily remained in Egypt, what started as forced servitude became voluntary. If you have an employer, you are a slave by definition. “Don’t you know you are a servant to those who you obey”

 

[Dino246]

I'm pretty sure scripture says if you owe someone money you are their slave.

It says ‘the borrower is servant to the lender’.

 

[Charlesiii]

It seems like it is taken as a given by many Americans that owning slaves is a sin.

I had a conversation a few years ago with a man with a theology degree... not a pastor... and a law degree. He said something about slavery being a sin. I disagreed with him. Abraham and Isaac owned slaves and aren't called sinners for it. Philemon had love for the brethren, but he owned a slave, Onesimus. Paul was writing either to get Onesimus freed. But he does not condemn Philemon as a sinner for owning Onesimus. He does not urge him to repent. Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. Peter tells servants to submit to their masters, not only the good and considerate, but also the harsh ones.

The Old Testament regulates slavery. It does not forbid it. Israelites who went out to war against distant nations that would not take a peace treaty were expressly allowed to keep the virgin females as slaves, and they could also marry these slaves. Male Hebrew slaves were to be set free after seven years.

To add a bit of nuance, when Israelites were sinning in the time of Ezra by charging their brethren 1% interest (I'm assuming simple interest), and then on top of that taking debtors who did not pay as slaves, Ezra rebuked them for doing so. They had spent money to redeem fellow Israelites already. Charging interest to fellow Israelites was the actual sin in the law of Moses, not owning slaves.

Of course if you point this out in America and you aren't Black, you might get labelled a racist.

The Hebrew system of slavery was different from the transatlantic slave trade. There were some wicked practices like shackling people on the boat until many of them died, leaving other slaves in there with the stench of death. Also, kidnapping was a death penalty crime if the perpetrator were caught in the act. But obtaining slaves in war did not (necessarily) fit into this category. It seems likely transatlantic slaves were generally captured prior to being transported.

In some ways, Greek slavery may have been more humane. Romans might have been better in treatment than Transatlantic, potentially, if the slave did not end up in a brothel.

I notice that theological arguments from abolitionists in the 1800s were a bit looser theologically, based on loving one's brother. I haven't read that deeply. Southern arguments for slavery were a bit tighter on biblicist exegesis. For students of revival in the colonial era. George Whitfield, having seen the relative prosperity of southern colonies up north suggested that the new Georgia colony might be more prosperous if it had slaves, and slavery might not be as bad for those who were already accustomed to it.

While I appreciate living in a legal system without slavery (if we had it, who knows if you wouldn't be one), I kind of wonder if the trajectory of some of the liberal denominations up north, such as some of those those that grew out of the churches of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Separatists, tending away from tight exegesis to broader principles on this contributed to the general trend. Then you end up with people who think that the Bible is written for and in a morally deficient culture, but God's overall arching theme was to lead people toward modern liberal democratic ideals, like voting, universal suffrage, feminism, LGBT rights, etc. And then there are those who think that God has changed and become more enlightened and 'liberal' over time (my words for the concept.)

There is a valid argument that most of us live in slavery today. We don't own our labour - for many of us, a good 30% or more of the income from our labour is stolen from us in the form of taxation before it even reaches our wallets. In many jurisdictions, the government believes it owns our bodies and even our children - look at how it was so quick to demand injections for all with the deadly covid vaccines, or how it conspires to create rules by which it may steal children from their natural parents.

Even for those who are fairly well off, in order to maintain their lands and possessions, these must keep paying tribute (often earned by labour) to the government in order not to have their lands and possessions stolen. Being forced into labour is exactly what slavery is - the difference today is that the degree of slavery is more often reduced.

Many governments, including in the US, claim ownership of the lives of those they conscript to fight in their wars. Look no further than Ukraine and the unwilling peasants put into uniforms and turned into cannon fodder if you don't think slavery exists even in 2025 - albeit under more noble sounding names - "fighting for freedom" rather than slavery.

Certainly, history has known some evil types of slavery, where entire races were genocided and even greater numbers of people were tortured or murdered. The slavery practiced today is generally more humane in comparison, but is still slavery. Unpopular to call it that, because it makes the plantation owners become nervous of a revolt.

 

[Edward429451]

There is a valid argument that most of us live in slavery today. We don't own our labour - for many of us, a good 30% or more of the income from our labour is stolen from us in the form of taxation before it even reaches our wallets. In many jurisdictions, the government believes it owns our bodies and even our children - look at how it was so quick to demand injections for all with the deadly covid vaccines, or how it conspires to create rules by which it may steal children from their natural parents.

Even for those who are fairly well off, in order to maintain their lands and possessions, these must keep paying tribute (often earned by labour) to the government in order not to have their lands and possessions stolen. Being forced into labour is exactly what slavery is - the difference today is that the degree of slavery is more often reduced.

Many governments, including in the US, claim ownership of the lives of those they conscript to fight in their wars. Look no further than Ukraine and the unwilling peasants put into uniforms and turned into cannon fodder if you don't think slavery exists even in 2025 - albeit under more noble sounding names - "fighting for freedom" rather than slavery.

Certainly, history has known some evil types of slavery, where entire races were genocided and even greater numbers of people were tortured or murdered. The slavery practiced today is generally more humane in comparison, but is still slavery. Unpopular to call it that, because it makes the plantation owners become nervous of a revolt.

The Hebrews in bondage in Egypt were never under even close to so much bondage as America under right now. And they wat to go global now and make earth a prison planet. Most people don't even see it. All they can see is work and pay those bills.

 

[Charlesiii]

The Hebrews in bondage in Egypt were never under even close to so much bondage as America under right now. And they wat to go global now and make earth a prison planet. Most people don't even see it. All they can see is work and pay those bills.

The ancient Egyptian government forced the murder of the Hebrew boys eventually. What I like about today is that there is still some resistance. Even when the government was bribing parents to perform genital mutilations on their kids or get them groomed by pedophiles in schools, many saw the evil for what it was.

I think in ancient Egypt, people would have been worked to death, or killed if found resisting.

 

[HeIsHere]

Enslaving someone against their will is robbing that person of their freedom. In other words, it's the worst sort of theft.

I would agree there is a moral component to slavery that does not exist in an employee/employer relationship.

The employee consents to the terms of the contract, a slave does not have that opportunity, therefore the comparison does not hold well.

 

[Suze]

There is a valid argument that most of us live in slavery today. We don't own our labour - for many of us, a good 30% or more of the income from our labour is stolen from us in the form of taxation before it even reaches our wallets. In many jurisdictions, the government believes it owns our bodies and even our children - look at how it was so quick to demand injections for all with the deadly covid vaccines, or how it conspires to create rules by which it may steal children from their natural parents.

Even for those who are fairly well off, in order to maintain their lands and possessions, these must keep paying tribute (often earned by labour) to the government in order not to have their lands and possessions stolen. Being forced into labour is exactly what slavery is - the difference today is that the degree of slavery is more often reduced.

Many governments, including in the US, claim ownership of the lives of those they conscript to fight in their wars. Look no further than Ukraine and the unwilling peasants put into uniforms and turned into cannon fodder if you don't think slavery exists even in 2025 - albeit under more noble sounding names - "fighting for freedom" rather than slavery.

Certainly, history has known some evil types of slavery, where entire races were genocided and even greater numbers of people were tortured or murdered. The slavery practiced today is generally more humane in comparison, but is still slavery. Unpopular to call it that, because it makes the plantation owners become nervous of a revolt.

As individuals , we also make slaves of ourselves . To drugs , alcohol , keeping up with the Joneses etc , we can put ourselves into bondage of many things . Only when Christ returns shall our bondage truly b over .

 

[Levib]

There is a valid argument that most of us live in slavery today. We don't own our labour - for many of us, a good 30% or more of the income from our labour is stolen from us in the form of taxation before it even reaches our wallets. In many jurisdictions, the government believes it owns our bodies and even our children - look at how it was so quick to demand injections for all with the deadly covid vaccines, or how it conspires to create rules by which it may steal children from their natural parents.

Even for those who are fairly well off, in order to maintain their lands and possessions, these must keep paying tribute (often earned by labour) to the government in order not to have their lands and possessions stolen. Being forced into labour is exactly what slavery is - the difference today is that the degree of slavery is more often reduced.

Many governments, including in the US, claim ownership of the lives of those they conscript to fight in their wars. Look no further than Ukraine and the unwilling peasants put into uniforms and turned into cannon fodder if you don't think slavery exists even in 2025 - albeit under more noble sounding names - "fighting for freedom" rather than slavery.

Certainly, history has known some evil types of slavery, where entire races were genocided and even greater numbers of people were tortured or murdered. The slavery practiced today is generally more humane in comparison, but is still slavery. Unpopular to call it that, because it makes the plantation owners become nervous of a revolt.

Our USA military has not used the draft in over 60 years. They are volunteers not slaves.

 

[Edward429451]

The employee consents to the terms of the contract, a slave does not have that opportunity, therefore the comparison does not hold well.

It could be a good analogy in some circumstances. From what I understand of the slave trade way back when some truths cant be ignored. Africa was too dangerous for white man to go inland to go capture Kunta Kinta, which is all lies as a movie. Africa was very poor and had a lot of cannibal so many times parents would sell their younger family members to the slave traders which would keep them safe from the head hunters and give them a chance to live. Plus not only would it be one less mouth to feed but the family gets paid and shows a profit on selling the kid! Everybody wins.

 

[Charlesiii]

Our USA military has not used the draft in over 60 years. They are volunteers not slaves.

Perhaps now, but they were slaves then, and who knows, people may well be enslaved in the same way again. To my knowledge, none of those who were enslaved to go and kill or die in Vietnam ever received apologies or compensation. If the guilty aren't held to account and the government admits no doing of wrong, it can happen again.

The government certainly doesn't speak against it when their allies do it (e.g. think no further than modern day Ukraine or Israel).

 

[4urenlightment]

It seems like it is taken as a given by many Americans that owning slaves is a sin.

I had a conversation a few years ago with a man with a theology degree... not a pastor... and a law degree. He said something about slavery being a sin. I disagreed with him. Abraham and Isaac owned slaves and aren't called sinners for it. Philemon had love for the brethren, but he owned a slave, Onesimus. Paul was writing either to get Onesimus freed. But he does not condemn Philemon as a sinner for owning Onesimus. He does not urge him to repent. Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. Peter tells servants to submit to their masters, not only the good and considerate, but also the harsh ones.

The Old Testament regulates slavery. It does not forbid it. Israelites who went out to war against distant nations that would not take a peace treaty were expressly allowed to keep the virgin females as slaves, and they could also marry these slaves. Male Hebrew slaves were to be set free after seven years.

To add a bit of nuance, when Israelites were sinning in the time of Ezra by charging their brethren 1% interest (I'm assuming simple interest), and then on top of that taking debtors who did not pay as slaves, Ezra rebuked them for doing so. They had spent money to redeem fellow Israelites already. Charging interest to fellow Israelites was the actual sin in the law of Moses, not owning slaves.

Of course if you point this out in America and you aren't Black, you might get labelled a racist.

The Hebrew system of slavery was different from the transatlantic slave trade. There were some wicked practices like shackling people on the boat until many of them died, leaving other slaves in there with the stench of death. Also, kidnapping was a death penalty crime if the perpetrator were caught in the act. But obtaining slaves in war did not (necessarily) fit into this category. It seems likely transatlantic slaves were generally captured prior to being transported.

In some ways, Greek slavery may have been more humane. Romans might have been better in treatment than Transatlantic, potentially, if the slave did not end up in a brothel.

I notice that theological arguments from abolitionists in the 1800s were a bit looser theologically, based on loving one's brother. I haven't read that deeply. Southern arguments for slavery were a bit tighter on biblicist exegesis. For students of revival in the colonial era. George Whitfield, having seen the relative prosperity of southern colonies up north suggested that the new Georgia colony might be more prosperous if it had slaves, and slavery might not be as bad for those who were already accustomed to it.

While I appreciate living in a legal system without slavery (if we had it, who knows if you wouldn't be one), I kind of wonder if the trajectory of some of the liberal denominations up north, such as some of those those that grew out of the churches of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Separatists, tending away from tight exegesis to broader principles on this contributed to the general trend. Then you end up with people who think that the Bible is written for and in a morally deficient culture, but God's overall arching theme was to lead people toward modern liberal democratic ideals, like voting, universal suffrage, feminism, LGBT rights, etc. And then there are those who think that God has changed and become more enlightened and 'liberal' over time (my words for the concept.)

in those days, if they didn't have anything to barter with, they have to offer themselves as a slave or a concubine to be taken care of or to pay off a debt.
Most fathers in those days gave up their daughters to become a concubine to pay off a debt that the father owed to someone or give up their son to be a slave.
Most women choose to be concubines to be taken care of if they can't find a husband that will.
Like when God order the soldiers to take their enemies' unmarried women (Virgins) and have sex with them was to seal the deal with the virgins so they can have someone to take care of them since their no one left to take care of them. Having sex with the casualties of war's the unmarried women is an agreement that the women become one with the one they had sex with. That the man has to take care of them as if they are his family.
That was their customs in those times. But leaving a woman to take care of herself was punishment in those days, like what happen to Hagar the concubine.
And so, God order the men to take them as concubines so they will not have to defend for themselves in the wilderness.
but now we have Social Security benefits for the disable and old and welfare for the unemployed to be taken care of

“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” — Numbers 31:17–18

1 Corinthians 6:16
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

 

[homwardbound]

When does a human beings status change from just being a person , to being a slave ? What marks someone out as being a potential slave ? They r weak ? Homeless ? Penniless ? Intellectually inferior / uneducated ? Because someone appears to b deficient in some way ? Does that mean that we can take advantage of them ?
We must remember , God is real , alive , and knows all of our thoughts and words .

I see said the blind person to the deaf person that picked up the hammer and saw

 

[homwardbound]

I do not know what you mean.

Okay, I said I see, I hear you have gone through some adversities, if wrong and you have not or will not, Wow!!!!!!!!! God bless, I have had my fair share, love to you, no offense ever meant to you or anyone, I stand in trust to God over it all, thanks

 

[Edward429451]

Okay, I said I see, I hear you have gone through some adversities, if wrong and you have not or will not, Wow!!!!!!!!! God bless, I have had my fair share, love to you, no offense ever meant to you or anyone, I stand in trust to God over it all, thanks

Oh I didnt take any offense at it. But you had a few typos and it made it hard to read, I wasnt sure.

I've had my share of adversities. Not near as bad as some people that I know. I didn't have to go through some things that it happens to almost all people. That part sort of scares me, maybe mine big one is still in my future? That's not a pleasant thought, lol.

 

[homwardbound]

Oh I didnt take any offense at it. But you had a few typos and it made it hard to read, I wasnt sure.

I've had my share of adversities. Not near as bad as some people that I know. I didn't have to go through some things that it happens to almost all people. That part sort of scares me, maybe mine big one is still in my future? That's not a pleasant thought, lol.

Thanks, I am learning to edit better, I get going and forget and typo a lot, not as much as did when first started years ago on internet