4 ms·

The typical broad outlines you'll see from Christians goes something like this: 1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was diffe

The typical broad outlines you'll see from Christians goes something like this: 1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of when we think of the word today. It'd have been a little close to the debt slavery you see in this article, but in its ideal form there were provisions for release after a period of time. 2. The New Testament didn't outright condemn slavery, but the Epistle to Philemon is a short book that shines a lot of light on the attitude that Paul had and that Christians used as a basis for their positions on slavery down the line. Onesimus needed to return to Philemon, but Philemon needed to treat him as a brother in Christ. Peter expressed similar views as well.

candiodari 10y ago
I think it'd be far more accurate to describe the New Testament's attitude toward slavery (and debts in general, but that fact is de-emphasized) would be to say that 1) they must end. It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. 2) it is, however, not for Christians to violently take other's property away. Not even slaves. A Christian should campaign for slave owners and creditors to release their charges, maybe even convince them to convert, but violently or legally freeing slaves away is forbidden. 3) Using money to achieve slaves' or debtors freedom is a specifically named virtue. So it's a "let it die" attitude. End slavery with minimal disruption. During the middle ages, traders from Southern Europe would often trade with muslims, and as a "good works" effort for their bosses/companies, they'd go to the slave markets of whatever city they were in and buy some slaves. They would be offered a free ride to Europe (and be paid for cleaning the deck or cooking on the way, to get some starter cash) and allowed to settle in Europe. If they didn't speak the language they'd take them to a monastery where they could often stay to learn. This worked, while islam requires slavery and slave trade (halal/wajib), it recognizes that freeing slaves is a good deed. Therefore they'd often sell slaves to be freed at a discount. The freed slaves could, but generally didn't, stay where they were, because muslims would simply capture them again (there's many such things in trade ports in Northern Africa. For instance, these muslim cities would often organize a yearly slave sports event. If the slaves won, they'd often get their freedom for that. However, more often than not, the owners of losing slaves would kill any slave that actually took his freedom).
- gragas 10y ago
  The whole "Islam says freeing slaves is a good deed" is untrue and extremely misleading. Everyone always quotes the first part of the sentence from the Quran, but the last half is left out: > This is a command from Allah to slave-owners: if their servants ask them for a contract of emancipation, they should write it for them, provided that the servant has some skill and means of earning so that he can pay his master the money that is stipulated in the contract. Yeah, let the slaves go, but make sure they sign a contract such that they have to give all their earnings to their masters for the rest of their lives. 1. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2426&Itemid=79 http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Islam seems to be much more specific in regards to economic issues. The Jizya is another example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
- GedByrne 10y ago
  Could you give some scriptural references please?
  - vivekd 10y ago
    Leviticus 25:37-55 says that bibilical slavery is to be temporary (lasting only till the year of Jubilee which came every 50 years) but they may buy themselves or have a family member buy themselves out sooner. The fact that they could buy themselves out of slavery also strongly suggests that slaves got paid. . . these provisions make ancient slavery very different from the racialized and cruel slavery we see in modern forms of slavery.
- cygx 10y ago
  It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. That's not what the Catholic church taught as late as 1866: https://suchanek.name/texts/atheism/slavery.html https://suchanek.name/texts/atheism/slavery.html
cygx 10y ago
1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of Which ignores the difference in rules applying to Hebrew slaves compared to foreign slaves. As far as foreigners are concerned, you could beat them severely as long as you don't outright beat them to death. You could give wives to your male slaves, and the children would be born enslaved. After your death, these slaves became part of your inheritance. How is that substantially different from our modern understanding of the word?
- vivekd 10y ago
  That's not true, children born to slaves were treated as the master's children > If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. (Exodus 21:4) further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured (Exodus 21:26-27) >“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
  - cygx 10y ago
    children born to slaves were treated as the master's children That applies to Hebrew slaves. What happens to the children of foreign slaves is not clearly stated, but it's the logical consequence of the rules applicable to Hebrews and foreigners. further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured If they are permanently injured. Cf Exodus 21:20-21: Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. There are no repercussions for whipping them as severely as you like as long as they recover.
- sorokod 10y ago
  It is a common misunderstanding to assume that the laws of the old testament are applicable to all humanity. A contemporary Jewish reader would have been amazed at an idea that "though shall not kill" for example, applies to gentiles.

candiodari 10y ago

I think it'd be far more accurate to describe the New Testament's attitude toward slavery (and debts in general, but that fact is de-emphasized) would be to say that 1) they must end. It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. 2) it is, however, not for Christians to violently take other's property away. Not even slaves. A Christian should campaign for slave owners and creditors to release their charges, maybe even convince them to convert, but violently or legally freeing slaves away is forbidden. 3) Using money to achieve slaves' or debtors freedom is a specifically named virtue. So it's a "let it die" attitude. End slavery with minimal disruption. During the middle ages, traders from Southern Europe would often trade with muslims, and as a "good works" effort for their bosses/companies, they'd go to the slave markets of whatever city they were in and buy some slaves. They would be offered a free ride to Europe (and be paid for cleaning the deck or cooking on the way, to get some starter cash) and allowed to settle in Europe. If they didn't speak the language they'd take them to a monastery where they could often stay to learn. This worked, while islam requires slavery and slave trade (halal/wajib), it recognizes that freeing slaves is a good deed. Therefore they'd often sell slaves to be freed at a discount. The freed slaves could, but generally didn't, stay where they were, because muslims would simply capture them again (there's many such things in trade ports in Northern Africa. For instance, these muslim cities would often organize a yearly slave sports event. If the slaves won, they'd often get their freedom for that. However, more often than not, the owners of losing slaves would kill any slave that actually took his freedom).

gragas 10y ago
The whole "Islam says freeing slaves is a good deed" is untrue and extremely misleading. Everyone always quotes the first part of the sentence from the Quran, but the last half is left out: > This is a command from Allah to slave-owners: if their servants ask them for a contract of emancipation, they should write it for them, provided that the servant has some skill and means of earning so that he can pay his master the money that is stipulated in the contract. Yeah, let the slaves go, but make sure they sign a contract such that they have to give all their earnings to their masters for the rest of their lives. 1. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2426&Itemid=79 http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Islam seems to be much more specific in regards to economic issues. The Jizya is another example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
GedByrne 10y ago
Could you give some scriptural references please?
- vivekd 10y ago
  Leviticus 25:37-55 says that bibilical slavery is to be temporary (lasting only till the year of Jubilee which came every 50 years) but they may buy themselves or have a family member buy themselves out sooner. The fact that they could buy themselves out of slavery also strongly suggests that slaves got paid. . . these provisions make ancient slavery very different from the racialized and cruel slavery we see in modern forms of slavery.
cygx 10y ago
It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. That's not what the Catholic church taught as late as 1866: https://suchanek.name/texts/atheism/slavery.html https://suchanek.name/texts/atheism/slavery.html

cygx 10y ago

1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of Which ignores the difference in rules applying to Hebrew slaves compared to foreign slaves. As far as foreigners are concerned, you could beat them severely as long as you don't outright beat them to death. You could give wives to your male slaves, and the children would be born enslaved. After your death, these slaves became part of your inheritance. How is that substantially different from our modern understanding of the word?

vivekd 10y ago
That's not true, children born to slaves were treated as the master's children > If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. (Exodus 21:4) further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured (Exodus 21:26-27) >“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
- cygx 10y ago
  children born to slaves were treated as the master's children That applies to Hebrew slaves. What happens to the children of foreign slaves is not clearly stated, but it's the logical consequence of the rules applicable to Hebrews and foreigners. further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured If they are permanently injured. Cf Exodus 21:20-21: Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. There are no repercussions for whipping them as severely as you like as long as they recover.
sorokod 10y ago
It is a common misunderstanding to assume that the laws of the old testament are applicable to all humanity. A contemporary Jewish reader would have been amazed at an idea that "though shall not kill" for example, applies to gentiles.