Thoughts On Slavery

[Guest]

This is a topic going on at Catholic Answers right now in the Sacred Scripture forum. It was a really good read and I'm hoping it continues. Mike from NJ (an atheist) arguments are really convincing and the Catholic rebuttals are not that good. I'm hoping some better replies come. This is one of the topics that has really challenged my faith and belief in the Bible. I'm not looking for a debate here but obviously post what you want in reply but first read the thread and the points Mike makes.http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1017013

 

 

Post from Mike....................

 

And again you're ignoring Leviticus 20:23 in saying that the Hebrews simply had to be slowly weened off of slavery (after THOUSANDS of years).

That some other nations practiced slavery is NOT an excuse.

"That (allegedly) the Hebrews had been a slave-owning people 430 years earlier is NOT an excuse. To put that in perspective if your ancestors had offspring on average every 25 years that's your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents."

You would think that after being slaves themselves they would have some empathy against victims of the practice."

 

But this is what really gets me. God is literally telling his people what is good and what is not. He can not do evil.

 

He is said to be infinitely powerful, infinitely wise, and infinitely loving.

Yet when we talk about God in the context of biblical slavery suddenly:

* He doesn't have the wisdom to formulate a social structure where there is no slavery. He can tell his people what to do if you leave a pit open and a neighbor's ox falls in, but he can't tell people that others aren't properly and we should treat them as they would wish to be treated.

* He doesn't have the power to demonstrate to his people the benefits of treating everyone equally and fairly.

* He doesn't have the love to tell people that beating another is wrong. To not hold a man's family hostage so he will continue working for you against his will. He doesn't need to intercede divinely, just speak that which is good and not speak evil and then have his followers millennia later claim what he spoke wasn't really evil but his earlier followers that were at fault.

 

All this combines to a god who is utterly impotent -- yet peoplerevel and glorify his impotence as something to be admired.

 

Read what I wrote again: "Paul doesn't call for the ending of slavery and God (any of the three persons) certainly does not call for it." You pointed out where Paul called it a sin, but you didn't mention one whit of any person of God calling it a sin or looking to end it.

 

You claim that the New Testament call to treat slaves as brothers undermines justification of slavery, but Jesus himself uses an analogy talking about how slaves who do wrong and don't know any better will be beaten (albeit less severely than those who know better). His use of the analogy doesn't show any unfairness in the beating of slaves or the practice thereof.

 

God shows his people how to be cruel to slaves. God doesn't at any point call for the end of slavery. God doesn't change. God endorses slavery.

[Papist]

My understanding is that Catholics prefer sweet.

[LittleWaySoul]

2 hours ago, Papist said:

My understanding is that Catholics prefer sweet.

Nah, I'm a savery kind of girl. 

But in all seriousness, while I don't know a hard-and-fast answer to Josh's question, my inclination is to say that Jesus didn't explicitly condemn every evil there is, but that doesn't mean He endorses it. As for the parable he tells, it's always been my impression that He was trying to use a contemporary social structure that His followers would understand to explain a difficult concept (as He did in all His parables). Again, that doesn't mean He endorses slavery. 

As for the Old Testament, I have to admit I don't know quite as much, but I'd be interested in hearing from someone who does!

[Guest]

@Ice_nine or any Mediator of Meh can you fix the title of the thread? Thanks.

[Guest]

Post from Mike..............             wiggbuggie, while there is a passage in the Bible claiming that divorce was allowed initially as an accommodation for his people nothing even close to that exists for slavery. Not one word is made against the practice of slavery. Anyone out there who tells you that God allowed slavery just like he allowed divorce for a time is not only coming to that conclusion out of thin air but is also adding to scripture (which is strictly not allowed).

 

Faxero, when God was said to give his people the instructions on how one can acquire and treat slaves (e.g. Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44) they were supposedly wandering the desert after having been enslaved by the Egyptians for 430 years. They possessed no slaves at the time and numerous generations of Hebrews had gone without slaves. There was no practice of slavery to accommodate and there were no cultural circumstances to consider. On top of that Leviticus 20:23 has God specifically telling his people to not follow the practices of neighboring nations, so any suggestion that God had to take into account the act of slavery in that time and place are both null and void.

 

hadulzo, what you are referring to is indentured servitude, which was a real thing. It did not involve being born into slavery, sold into slavery, or having one's children become slaves. It also did not involve the threat of manslaughter (see Exodus 21:20-21). This common apologetic that there is a distinction between slavery of say the 19th century slavery (so-called "chattel slavery") and that of Biblical times falls to tatters upon examination.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Guest

[Papist]

My thoughts are that I would not participate in that slavery thread. Especially that involves an atheist explaining the meaning of God's Word.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Papist

[Guest]

He makes great points if you choose to just bury your head in the sand and not engage him because they're tough questions and he's an atheist then that's your choice. I love Phatmass but Catholic Answers definitely trumps this place with the discussions they have there about tough topics and the depth they go in discussing these issues.

[Papist]

Knock yourself out.  My bet is that you will come to realize that he has all kinds of questions, but is not sincerely looking for answers. 

[Peace]

I find this topic interesting. I think it has been discussed in other threads here before. I think that one idea we had was that God sets different rules for different groups of people at different points in history, according to the state of their moral development.  In a sense God allows things at certain points in history because the people were not morally developed enough to live according to the ideal standard. Kind of like how Jesus talks about divorce being allowed in the OT times "because of the hardness of your hearts" but that his new law disallows it because that is not God's ideal for man and woman.

Maybe such an idea might apply to OT slavery.

As for whether the NT disavows slavery - who cares? We are not limited to the NT as Catholics. The Church says that slavery is immoral. The Church came before the Bible and is the foundation of the truth. Not the other way around.

[Seven77]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I find this topic interesting. I think it has been discussed in other threads here before. I think that one idea we had was that God sets different rules for different groups of people at different points in history, according to the state of their moral development.  In a sense God allows things at certain points in history because the people were not morally developed enough to live according to the ideal standard. Kind of like how Jesus talks about divorce being allowed in the OT times "because of the hardness of your hearts" but that his new law disallows it because that is not God's ideal for man and woman.

Maybe such an idea might apply to OT slavery.

As for whether the NT disavows slavery - who cares? We are not limited to the NT as Catholics. The Church says that slavery is immoral. The Church came before the Bible and is the foundation of the truth. Not the other way around.

 Exactly… except I would add that the New Testament basically does disallow slavery.

 For a Catholic it is very clear that slavery is wrong and immoral. I forgot which Pope it was that condemned the slave trade before anyone else really did. I'm going to go look him up right now.

"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (<subdiderunt perpetuae servituti>), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (<servituti subicere>). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."

- Pope  Eugene IV, Sicut Dudum, 1435

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

[Luigi]

Slavery has been practiced, in various ways, in any number of cultures for any number of centuries. From a cultural perspective, it is or WAS - actually very common (China, Greece, Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Native Americans, Central & South America, sub-Saharan Africa - name it and claim it!). We Americans tend to think of "slavery" as chattel slavery as practiced in the US, but even that was extremely various. Most people know almost nothing about slavery except what they see in the movies, and the movies show only the extremes of any situation, never the norm. I'm not defending slavery in America - certainly, a lot of what went on was immoral - I'm just saying that when we read the word "slavery," we shouldn't assume that it always means what is depicted in pop movies.  

St. Paul famously said that, in Christ, there is no male or female, no Greek or Jew, no slave or free. Well, clearly, there are still males and females, and Greeks and Jews, and there were still slaves in his day. He didn't call for slavery to be abolished. In fact, in some other passage, he said that slaves should obey their masters. So he must have meant that, "in the sight of God, these differences are insignificant" for salvation, or spiritual growth, or whatever. But neither Jesus nor Paul called for a restructuring of civil/cultural society. 

Our current culture has disavowed the slavery that was once legal here, and so have most of the western countries, and so has the Church. What was important for Jesus, and Paul, and what's still important for the Church, is the salvation of souls. And that can occur even if the bodies of the faithful are enslaved. 

[little2add]

What is the point of dwelling in the past?

slavery is outlawed

In this day and age (in America)

[Guest]

Post from a black Catholic friend on Facebook............................. "I seriously have zero hope for humanity. Scrolling down my newsfeed seeing friends of friends making disgustingly biased, xenophobic or racist comments... I'm two degrees of separation from people who think I'm less of a human because of my skin color. And surprise, surprise, these people are supposed to be fellow Christians. This garbage right here is part of the reason so many "40 and unders" are leaving the faith in droves. Hypocrites. I see it. We all see it. But you need to be worried about God who sees ALL."

 

[Guest]

Another post from black Catholic friend on Facebook.................."So today I learned that slavery wasn't so bad, black people need to stop wielding it as a weapon as much as they do. And at the same time that slavery wasn't so bad, we're dusting off that nonsense about the Irish slaves, which despite being debunked to death, makes no sense because slavery wasn't bad but then was bad because white people were slaves...seriously, the lies, the mental gymnastics you people do to maintain your white supremacy, like my girl said, God sees you! And when your actions and words hurt others, God's not going to give a croutons that ypu pretended to vote prolife, because you didnt."

Edited July 29, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”

 

Pope Blessed Pius IX, June 20, 1866: