Why does the Bible never condemn slavery?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FuzzyBunny116
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Alfie:
The Bible most certainly is the be-all. .
No. The Church existed hundreds of years before the canon of the New Testament was finalized. And as John 21, 25 says “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

We must look to scripture and tradition for the full message.
 
I always thought that slavery was against the natural law as well, until I read an article in First Things that got me thinking in another direction. The article basically made the same arguments that batteddy and Orionthehunter made. The point in a nutshell were that slavery was historically a necessary social structure, and did not necessarily lead to abuses. Slavery is not the ideal, but can apparently be an acceptable social form in a fallen world. To accept slavery is not to accept racism or prostitution or abuse. Also, to say that slavery is an acceptable social structure is not to say that it should be instituted. There are too many opportunities for abuses.

It’s an interesting argument and I am willing to consider it. However, it still seems strange to me that owning another person as property would not be against natural law, which has as its purpose the perfection of human nature.
 
40.png
Arrowood:
Also, to say that slavery is an acceptable social structure is not to say that it should be instituted.
I don’t get it. Is slavery acceptable or not? It should be yes or no.
If it is an acceptable social structure, then it should be accepted by society, otherwise, what does it mean except that you are theorising in a vacuum or in an ethical black hole of some sort.
 
Not at all. There are a number of moral issues that have conditions attached to them. For example, capital punishment is morally acceptible if it is the only way to fulfill the goals of punishment, especially the protection of society. Also, a just war may be waged only if certain criteria are met. Likewise, slavery may be morally acceptible, but only under certain conditions. It is acceptible, but not ideal - like a just war.
 
40.png
Arrowood:
Likewise, slavery may be morally acceptible, but only under certain conditions.
What are the conditions under which you say slavery is OK. When do you say it is OK to forcibly kidnap people from their families and to enslave them? Was the Atlantic slave trade of 1440-1870 OK or not? If not, how come, so many Catholic priests in the New World owned slaves as their property? I don;t think it is right for someone to say that he owns another human being as his personal property. Particularly with reference to the white European male owning the young African woman as his personal slave.
 
Is slavery truly gone?

When one considers how the economic system works with credit card debts, low wages etc. I can see numerous laborers who are not “free”. They are stuck working in mills and factories.

Although the debt isn’t owed directly to the employer, it is the debt that enslaves the worker. And should the worker not pay his debt, the law will come down on him.

I’m not saying that this is unjust. But that this mechanism is still in place to some degree.
 
40.png
stanley123:
What are the conditions under which you say slavery is OK. When do you say it is OK to forcibly kidnap people from their families and to enslave them? Was the Atlantic slave trade of 1440-1870 OK or not? If not, how come, so many Catholic priests in the New World owned slaves as their property? I don;t think it is right for someone to say that he owns another human being as his personal property. Particularly with reference to the white European male owning the young African woman as his personal slave.
It is not simple because it is a matter of terms. Taking people and using them as animals is immoral. However, a just penalty of indentured servitude is morally acceptable.
 
40.png
stanley123:
What are the conditions under which you say slavery is OK. When do you say it is OK to forcibly kidnap people from their families and to enslave them? Was the Atlantic slave trade of 1440-1870 OK or not? If not, how come, so many Catholic priests in the New World owned slaves as their property? I don;t think it is right for someone to say that he owns another human being as his personal property. Particularly with reference to the white European male owning the young African woman as his personal slave.
I am relatively new to the arguments that slavery is not necessarily opposed to the moral law, and am only trying to understand the argument. I agree with mosher that indentured servitude would be morally acceptible - to work off a debt of some kind. I think the First Things article was referring to caste-system slavery and to the (usually temporary) enslavement of prisoners of war. I do not think the argument has been made that slave trade is morally acceptible, or kidnapping/abduction. Treating people as property would seem to me to be inherently morally evil. However, laying claim to someone’s labor may not be.

You have mentioned the European male owning the young African woman slave a number of times. I would reiterate what other posters have said. Sexual exploitation is never justified. Saying that slavery may be ok is not to say that the abuses of persons under slavery are ok.

As far as “many Catholic priests” owning slaves in the New World, I am a student and teacher of United States history, and I love to study Catholic history in the United States, and I have never found evidence that “many Catholic priests” owned slaves. Are you sure you haven’t fallen victim of one of the many historical fallicies against Catholics?
 
However, it still seems strange to me that owning another person as property would not be against natural law, which has as its purpose the perfection of human nature.
Slavery which views people as chattel* is* wrong.

Slavery as hypothetically justifiable views slaves as humans with all basic human rights. Their lifetime labor is simply owned by another person for life. Does not mean they are an object instead of a person.
 
40.png
batteddy:
Slavery which views people as chattel* is* wrong.

Slavery as hypothetically justifiable views slaves as humans with all basic human rights. Their lifetime labor is simply owned by another person for life. Does not mean they are an object instead of a person.
In Biblical slavery, the labor was not owed for a lifetime, but only for a certain period, namely to the next Jubilee year.

Every 7 years, the Israelites had a Year of Jubilee, in which all debts were canceled and all slaves were released.

Basic human rights were guaranteed, such as treatment and families were not to be broken up.

In addition, the slave owner was required to provide funds for the former slave to return home after their period of indenture.

This type of slavery is more properly called ‘indentured servitude’ and can be morally neutral, or even moral, as a restitution for loss.

Chattel slavery, on the other hand, were the person is a type of property, is a sin against the dignity of the person and has been consistently condemned by the Church.
 
For thousands of years, in fact, up until the 1500’s, all races and all cultures made slaves of all other races and cultures.

The word “slavery” orginates, in fact, from the “slav” culture.

In those days, the thing we refer to as “democracy” was pretty rare. Just as slavery was pretty “normal”.

War was normal. So it treated in the Bible as just another state of affairs.

Wealthy heads of state and chiefs had concubines.

It’s just the way it was back then - 5000 years ago… 2000 years ago… 1000 years ago… 500 years ago. And in some cultures, still exists today.
 
40.png
batteddy:
However, it must be understood that it is not the person who is owned as chattel, but their LABOR,
How do you own a person’s labor without owning the person. If you are forcing him or her to give you the fruits of his or her labor, through means of violence or cohersion,or enslavement, then you own the person. You can’t separate the person’s labor from the person.
 
40.png
snoopy:
How do you own a person’s labor without owning the person. If you are forcing him or her to give you the fruits of his or her labor, through means of violence or cohersion,or enslavement, then you own the person. You can’t separate the person’s labor from the person.
In our state, prisoners make items such as license plates and furniture for state offices. The State owns their labor.

Does that mean that the state of Michigan actually owns the people in it’s prison system?
 
Slavery in ancient times was fundamentally different from slavery in modern times. In ancient times slaves were slaves because they were prisoners of war or they were greatly indebted to the slave owner. Slaves were given positions of authority by their owners and were educated. Slaves could own some property and they were often set free by age thirty. They were considered people and were not slaves do to ethnicity. Slavery in ancient times was far less evil than in modern times. By no means do I condone slavery, but distinctions need to be made where they are do.

Source : tulalives.org/slavery/45-history/55-slavery-in-ancient-times
 
Please don’t take anything I say as condoning slavery, especially the exploitive practices that developed as economies developed beginning after the Dark Ages.

First of all, the economic systems were so imperfect for much of history that slavery was actually a humane way for people to meet their basic ways. The institution of slavery allowed for people to live together in community, have a roof over their heads and eat square meals. There are numerous examples in the Bible that chastised slave owners who mistreated their slaves.

Second, because of the imperfection of the economic system, the alternative to living under the “lordship” of a feudal master was being a beggar for the slave. Additionally, not having slaves meant that that vital goods wouldn’t be produced leading to famine, disease and death.

Third, keep in mind that for much of history, the “slave owner” lived among his people as one of them. Abraham was described as a tribal leader but essentially his “tribe” could be called slaves. Think about what we know about American Indian tribal system. Essentially, the Chief was the “slave owner” who operated for the benefit of his tribe or “slaves.” This analogy is comparable to the manner that existed in Biblical times.

So essentially, the Bible was written within the realities of the economic systems that existed. But the Bible is replete w/ condemnation of the treatment of slaves in a way contrary to their human dignity. As the economic system developed, it first allowed the development of indidividual tenant farmers and fishermen who independently procured food stuffs which necessitated the need for specialized “shop keepers” (bakers, shoe makers, and tailors) and artisans (artists, masons, and the “profession” of our Lord, carpenters) which led to the need for people to organize a system of capital (bankers). This all lead to the development of efficient education systems. As people became educated and more self-sufficient, slavery became increasingly exploitive and thus increasingly contrary to God-given human dignity.

The evolving “rightness/wrongness” of slavery is also applicable to the death penalty in that in a tribal environment without organized criminal justice systems what we’d now call “vigilante justice” was acceptable and to the war in that there were less developed means for inter-tribal justice but now except in the case of ending human suffering (Kosovo, Iraq**, our non-intervention in Rwanda and now the Sudan) nearly all war is unjust.
  • This is also why usury/interest was condemned in the Bible as the practice was exploitive as a means to keep people in slavery rather than allowing them to earn their freedom. But as the economy developed, it became a free and consensual transaction between free and independant people.
** This is why I never liked the WMD argument for Iraq but support it for human dignity reasons and will not support a preemptive military strike against Iran where the human atrocities are mild in comparison to Iraq.

From the Catechism: The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,*** the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.

*** From Exodus, Chapter 3:
1 Meanwhile Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian. Leading the flock across the desert, he came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
2 There an angel of the LORD appeared to him in fire flaming out of a bush. As he looked on, he was surprised to see that the bush, though on fire, was not consumed.
3 So Moses decided, “I must go over to look at this remarkable sight, and see why the bush is not burned.”
4 When the LORD saw him coming over to look at it more closely, God called out to him from the bush, “Moses! Moses!” He answered, “Here I am.”
5 God said, “Come no nearer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.
6 3 I am the God of your father,” he continued, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.” Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.
7 But the LORD said, “I have witnessed the affliction of my people in Egypt and have heard their cry of complaint against their slave drivers, so I know well what they are suffering.
8 Therefore I have come down to rescue them from the hands of the Egyptians and lead them out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey, the country of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
9 So indeed the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have truly noted that the Egyptians are oppressing them.
10 Come, now! I will send you to Pharaoh to lead my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt.”
i have wondered about this before, and could never find a satisfactory answer. thank you for a very well written and eloquent response! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top