How could Christian principles be incommensurate with slavery when the Apostle Paul assumes that slavery, *per se*, is okay when he encourages slaves to be faithful to their masters? It seems that since the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, assumes that the institution is good so long as Christian principles are honored.
Bob On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > hmm... would you say there are "valid" arguments on both sides - ha! Also, > I was / am aware that the Bible does not speak against slavery. I have > often thought though that Christian principles are not commensurate with > slavery and that is why, over time, that institution broke down. I guess it > sounds a little vain in that context. I am pleased to see one of my > assumptions challenged though. I will look into it and start a new post > regarding... > Rob > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:30:39 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [crosspointe-discuss] Re: That Frightful Institution > > > Rob brought up slavery. > > * > > When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the > slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave > survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his > own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) > > * > The principle is that if a certain teaching is not corrected or replaced by > an appropriate authority's teaching, then it stands. Obviously Jesus was > fine with the Law's stance on slavery, or he would have spoken out against > it. The Law's stance on slavery is that it is morally permissible. Back > when the northern and southern baptists split, southern baptists were ran > this argument to protect the institution of slavery. I thought that they > were right to defend the moral permissibility of slavery from a scriptural > standpoint. However, having no slavery is also morally permissible from a > scriptural standpoint, and we have prudential reasons to abolish slavery. > One prudential reason is that it is very easy for masters to abuse their > slaves. Another issue is that the Bible *does not* teach that each person > has the right to life, liberty and property. And the Bible does teach that > a person can be another person's property (see passage above). However, > Americans, in the sway of Enlightenment philosophy, came to believe that > every person does have such rights and hence cannot be the property of > another person. It's funny that most Christians think it is obvious that > the Bible is against slavery. To the contrary: it's clearly not against > slavery. > > Bobby > > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 5:27 PM, D C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bobby, > My argument was not that if Jesus didn't specifically address > something that I can assign whatever interpretation fits my personal > desires. Rather, it was that if Jesus didn't address it then there is > no interpretation that can be guaranteed to be the definitive. Also, > I have to admit to fast forwarding when you guys rewrite War and Peace > if I don't log on for a few hours. Having said that, when did we > start addressing slavery and how could Jesus ever be "okay with" it? > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crosspointe Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
