# Does self-defense apply to slaves and subjects?



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2009)

I read an account of a slave in the South being beaten severely almost to the inch of his life. The next time this began to happen he tried to defend himself and the master pulled his gun. The slave, defending his life, killed the slaveowner and ran.

Did the slave do anything wrong? Seems like self-defense. But does his status as a slave change anything?


----------



## he beholds (Feb 9, 2009)

I think we are to be subject to our authorities, so I think this includes when/if they are wronging us.


----------



## satz (Feb 9, 2009)

I honestly don't know what the answer would be today, but this came to mind;



> Exodus 21:20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.


----------



## TimV (Feb 9, 2009)

The law seems quite cruel to our eyes. The slave is personal property and can legally be beat to within an inch of his life. He's property.

BUT one has to keep in mind that the form of slavery has to be just. At the very least if the slave claims to be a Christian any involuntary slavery for more than 6 years is kidnapping, which carries the death penalty.

Also, people from man cultures are naturally inclinded to slavery in on form or another, and God doesn't want people too comfortable as slaves, so in my mind the Biblical laws on slavery are the perfect ballance of being as merciful as possible and at the same time being a deterent to becoming and staying a slave.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2009)

If the ATF then raids your compound, you shouldn't resist? Would this be a modern equivalent if you disagree that a slave can possess a right to self-defense (reasoning that we are subject to our authorities).

Also, wouldn't this mean that our Revolutionary War was sinful?


----------



## Timothy William (Feb 9, 2009)

My first thought was of the same verse that Satz mentioned.

However, an owner had no right to directly murder a slave, so I think it reasonable to think that a slave had some limited right to self defence when faced with the threat of imminent death at the hands of his master.


----------



## TimV (Feb 9, 2009)

> If the ATF then raids your compound, you shouldn't resist? Would this be a modern equivalent if you disagree that a slave can possess a right to self-defense (reasoning that we are subject to our authorities).
> 
> Also, wouldn't this mean that our Revolutionary War was sinful?



Do your hypothetical examples presuppose lawful authority acting without the intent of preventing one from Biblical obligations?


----------



## Timothy William (Feb 9, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Also, wouldn't this mean that our Revolutionary War was sinful?



I think it was a mistake, I'm not sure I would say it was sinful. But yes, we should be faithful to our superiors in all but the most extreme situations. I don't think that the oppression (real or imagined) that the American colonists suffered at the hands of the British was sufficient to warrant rebellion. OTOH a slave about to be murdered might be justified in defending himself.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2009)

If you were in Africa and the next tribe over tried to kidnap you, could you kill others to defend yourself? 

If slavery is a protected result of kidnapping, if your initial effort to escape was unsuccessful, what difference does it make if you tried to escape every day for the next 10 years and, when the master resists, harm him to procure your own freedom?

If you can kill to defend yourself,why not kill to free yourself? What's the difference between Southern chattel slavery and Nazi or Russian work camps?

-----Added 2/9/2009 at 10:16:07 EST-----



TimV said:


> > If the ATF then raids your compound, you shouldn't resist? Would this be a modern equivalent if you disagree that a slave can possess a right to self-defense (reasoning that we are subject to our authorities).
> >
> > Also, wouldn't this mean that our Revolutionary War was sinful?
> 
> ...



None of these are hypotheticals. Revolutionary War happened, Randy Weaver claims he had a right to defend himself and this slave account was supposed to be true.


----------



## TimV (Feb 9, 2009)

> If you were in Africa and the next tribe over tried to kidnap you, could you kill others to defend yourself?
> 
> If slavery is a protected result of kidnapping, if your initial effort to escape was unsuccessful, what difference does it make if you tried to escape every day for the next 10 years and, when the master resists, harm him to procure your own freedom?
> 
> If you can kill to defend yourself,why not kill to free yourself? What's the difference between Southern chattel slavery and Nazi or Russian work camps?



Are you asking this of anyone in particular? Or is this another one of our famous play the devil's advocate to clarify a matter in your own mind posts?


----------



## Timothy William (Feb 9, 2009)

Trading in stolen goods is a crime. Those who trade in slaves whom they reasonably suspect (or should suspect) have been kidnapped should not expect the slaves to be obedient. The OT penalty for kidnapping was death (in some circumstances) meaning that an unjustly kidnapped slave could use all necessary measures up to and including lethal force to escape.

However, what a slave might legally do is not always coterminous with the range of options which might be prudent for the slave in light of the Gospel. If the master is a heathen he might think that what he is doing is perfectly legal. In such cases it would be better to submit to the master if at all possible, otherwise the master might (erroneously) think that Christian slaves did not think themselves subject to lawful masters.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 9, 2009)

Timothy William said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Also, wouldn't this mean that our Revolutionary War was sinful?
> ...



I have been reading a lot about this topic, because I have asked the same question over and over again for years. As I understand it, the colonists believed (see the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence) that some rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally was property), were God-given and superceded the rule of kings. In addition, the law of England allowed the colonists the right to request redress of grievances in the form of withholding tax money until the king addressed their grievances. Even though the colonists repeatedly pleaded for King George to address their grievances, he ignored them. 

They were, as I see it, justified in rebelling. What I have found interesting is that many of the colonists refused to fight the British until British soldiers actually stepped foot on their property and started killing their familes and destroying their crops. 

I have been reading what the British did in my area of South Carolina, and it was awful. On one front, the British soliders burned and pillaged town after town raping and killing along the way. On the other front, they employed the natives to do the same. Much of this was prior to the colonists taking up arms. If that is what was happening across the colonies, I believe they were justified in their behavior.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 9, 2009)

Yes, he definitely had the right to defend himself. Just because he is a slave doesn't mean he doesn't bear God's image. The slave owner showed signs of unrestrained anger which could have led to murder which is breaking God's commandment. Secondly, I don't believe God commends slavery and I don't believe He ever did. He was always setting free those in bondage and had laws for the Israelites to set free their brethren after seven years. I think God allows things out of the hardness of men's hearts...but now I'm


----------



## sastark (Feb 9, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> If the ATF then raids your compound, you shouldn't resist? Would this be a modern equivalent if you disagree that a slave can possess a right to self-defense (reasoning that we are subject to our authorities).
> 
> Also, wouldn't this mean that our Revolutionary War was sinful?



I am neither a slave nor a servant of the United States government. I am a citizen.


----------



## CDM (Feb 9, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> I read an account of a slave in the South being beaten severely almost to the inch of his life. The next time this began to happen he tried to defend himself and the master pulled his gun. The slave, defending his life, killed the slaveowner and ran.
> 
> Did the slave do anything wrong? Seems like self-defense. But does his status as a slave change anything?



This one is a "slave" resulting from man-stealing--this is unjust servitude. He had a right to defend himself even without being attacked. 

Even if it were a just form of slavery / servanthood the slave has a right to defend himself from such brutality. I see no warrant from mankind to sit idly by while one, even your self, is being brutalized.

-----Added 2/9/2009 at 12:33:42 EST-----

I'll add, if some person or persons foreign or from my own people came and successfully kidnapped me (i.e., captured me alive) or those under my care, and I was a slave against my will, you better believe I would do more than defend myself at a given opportunity. It would resemble more like waging war on the man-stealer's house.

To be clear, it would all depend on the nature of my sevitude. The OP does not make a distinction.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 9, 2009)

I think it is nonsense to think anyone has to remain a slave to anyone. No one has the right to own another human being...we are not animals. I agree with Mangum...give me freedom or give me death!


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 9, 2009)

Timothy William said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Also, wouldn't this mean that our Revolutionary War was sinful?
> ...


Rebellion can only be against lawful authority. The King was the rebel, and was aided by a Parliament which had NO authority in the colonies (the Declaration of Independence clearly lists their grievances). The Declaration was preceded by the Fairfax Resolves. The train of abuses and usurpation was long. The colonists preferred to maintain their connection to England, but not at the price of the relinquishment of their God given rights. They refused to be slaves. The American "rebellion" was lead by lawfully ordained civil magistrates who resisted unlawful authority and hence should not be called sinful . . . or wrong for that matter.

So to in regards to the opening post, it depends. It is hard to say without knowing the circumstances. Being a slave does not mean you give up the right to self defense. Property in a slave is not a claim on the person, but on his labor (that is the value of the slave). The slave still maintains the God-given right of self defense (6th commandment) as a creature of God.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 9, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> If the ATF then raids your compound, you shouldn't resist? Would this be a modern equivalent if you disagree that a slave can possess a right to self-defense (reasoning that we are subject to our authorities).
> 
> Also, wouldn't this mean that our Revolutionary War was sinful?



If the ATF raids my compound, in a legal manner (that is, if they obtained the authority to do so, warrants, etc.) then I think to be a lawful citizen, I must allow it. For they would be working under the authority of the gov't, and would thus be an vice-authority, right? I imagine Paul would have allowed it. 

If they are causing me to sin, then I believe I MUST disobey.

As happy as I am that the Revolutionary War procured the US temporary freedom from tyranny (until our own government became the tyrants), I still think that it was wrong, even sinful, to not submit to that authority. I think we are to be willing to suffer all kinds of evil at the hands of our oppressors.

If a woman was given in an arranged marriage against her will to a man as a wife, I think she is to submit to him completely. 

I guess I think if you are truly about to be killed then fighting back _might_ not be a sin, because we are called to preserve life, and if our authority tries to take ours, maybe he is causing us to sin if we allow it. MAYBE.


----------



## sastark (Feb 9, 2009)

he beholds said:


> If a woman was given in an arranged marriage against her will to a man as a wife, I think she is to submit to him completely.



Possibly off topic, but...

The reason the woman must also consent to a marriage (that is, she must also say "I Do") is because women are NOT to be "given" against their will. They are not property nor are they "insurance" for contracts/treaties.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 9, 2009)

he beholds said:


> As happy as I am that the Revolutionary War procured the US temporary freedom from tyranny (until our own government became the tyrants), I still think that it was wrong, even sinful, to not submit to that authority. I think we are to be willing to suffer all kinds of evil at the hands of our oppressors.



23:4 It is the duty of people to pray for the magistrates (1Ti_2:1, 1Ti_2:2), to honour their persons (1Pe_2:17), to pay them tribute and other dues (Rom_13:6, Rom_13:7), *to obey their lawful commands*, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake (Rom_13:5; Tit_1:3). Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ *just and legal authority*, nor free the people from their due obedience to them (1Pe_2:13, 1Pe_2:14, 1Pe_2:16): from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted (1Ki_2:35; Act_25:9-11; Rom_13:1; 2Pe_2:1, 2Pe_2:10, 2Pe_2:11; Jud_1:8-11), much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever (2Th_2:4; Rev_13:15-17).

Authorities do not have authority because they say so. It must be based on law. The colonists were not rebelling against lawful authority but operating within it. It was the king who rebelled. In Scripture we are taught that all allegiance to earthly leaders is conditional and limited. This goes for the relationship to children to parents, wife to husband, slave to master, employee to employer, christian to pastor, presbyter to presbytery, etc. Only God deserves unquestioned and total submission. As such, in relations of authority we must always ask, "Is it lawful?" The answer to this question is not sufficient to be left at, "Well my authority said it is." This is tyranny in state, church, family or business relations.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Feb 9, 2009)

Chattel slavery, as used by those in the US, was a sin. Any man, woman, or child which found themselves in such a horrific position had every right to defend themselves. To this day we are still dealing with those who decided to defend their sin using scripture. It is akin to a Christian on Sunday profaning the Lord's name, slaps his mother, fornicates with his neighbors wife then kills her, steals the crucifix off her neck, and charges you as a law breaker because you call him a liar. How dare you bear false witness? He never lied.....


----------



## py3ak (Feb 9, 2009)

1 Peter 2:18-20

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, _when ye be buffeted_ for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.


----------



## satz (Feb 9, 2009)

brianeschen said:


> Rebellion can only be against lawful authority. The King was the rebel:



How do you define lawful authority, and by what standard was the King considered a rebel?


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 9, 2009)

satz said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> > Rebellion can only be against lawful authority. The King was the rebel:
> ...


I suppose this should be another thread?


----------



## he beholds (Feb 9, 2009)

sastark said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > If a woman was given in an arranged marriage against her will to a man as a wife, I think she is to submit to him completely.
> ...



Oh, I'm not a fan of arranged marriages, nor do I think they are right or proper. I just think if one did marry someone unwillingly, she is still his wife. She has to obey him, UNLESS doing so causes her to sin. I feel the same with any authority. Although the libertarian in me fights against those convictions



brianeschen said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > As happy as I am that the Revolutionary War procured the US temporary freedom from tyranny (until our own government became the tyrants), I still think that it was wrong, even sinful, to not submit to that authority. I think we are to be willing to suffer all kinds of evil at the hands of our oppressors.
> ...




I very much agree that submission should and must only occur when it is lawful. What did the king do that was forcing the people to sin against God's law? Daniel and company obeyed the king until his law asked them to break God's. Paul was speaking to _Roman_ citizens, telling _them_ to obey their leaders. These are two examples of very ungodly leaders, where submission, and not revolt, is displayed for us as examples. 

Now, if there are provisions for legal revolt (or say, secede), then I am all for it. Thankfully we have those provisions in our constitution. 



satz said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> > Rebellion can only be against lawful authority. The King was the rebel:
> ...



My question, as well!


----------



## sastark (Feb 9, 2009)

he beholds said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > he beholds said:
> ...



Which leads me to the question of: If the woman does not consent, is it a lawful marriage in the first place? My first inclination is to say that it is not. Is she, therefore, bound to honor the "marriage"? That is yet another topic for another thread, I think.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Feb 9, 2009)

py3ak said:


> 1 Peter 2:18-20
> 
> Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, _when ye be buffeted_ for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.



Ahhh...there is the "get whipped and like it" scripture. Now I wonder if "servant" is the same as "slave".... So we kidnap folk, convert them, and then use the scriptures to explain how they should be thankworthy they are whipped to an inch of life and their children are sold, and their wives are raped...oh but they are so much better off now. That is precious.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 9, 2009)

he beholds said:


> I very much agree that submission should and must only occur when it is lawful. What did the king do that was forcing the people to sin against God's law? Daniel and company obeyed the king until his law asked them to break God's. Paul was speaking to _Roman_ citizens, telling _them_ to obey their leaders. These are two examples of very ungodly leaders, where submission, and not revolt, is displayed for us as examples.


The situations you mention in the Bible and the one our forefathers found themselves in is not analogous. I would be glad to discuss it on another thread.



satz said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> > Rebellion can only be against lawful authority. The King was the rebel:
> ...





he beholds said:


> My question, as well!


Again, you have to look at the constitutional and legal arguments the colonists used in order to see the problem they had with the King. These men (Christian men by and large) were self consciously avoiding rebellion. This is why they took the time to list their grievances, to show that it was the King who had broken the covenant, not the colonists. See the Fairfax Resolves, the Declaration of Independence and then top it off with Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty . . ." speech. There is of course more, but I think it is better explored in another thread.


----------



## satz (Feb 9, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> Ahhh...there is the "get whipped and like it" scripture. Now I wonder if "servant" is the same as "slave".... So we kidnap folk, convert them, and then use the scriptures to explain how they should be thankworthy they are whipped to an inch of life and their children are sold, and their wives are raped...oh but they are so much better off now. That is precious.



But the thread - and the verse - was directed at how a slave should behave, not how a master should behave. No is saying this verse is an excuse for anyone to mistreat others.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2009)

If a man breaks into our house, we are allowed to shoot them (almost all on the pB seem to say so), but if the man breaks in and successfully carries us off and knocks us out and we wake up as slaves, are we all not agreed that we have a duty to escape and even harm the one who imprisoned us, or do we need to grin and bear it now that we have become slaves?

If a man tries to rape a woman, she can kill him in self-defense. But if that man forces a marriage on her and then demands his rights, she then must submit and not flee the forced marriage?


----------



## kalawine (Feb 9, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> I have been reading a lot about this topic, because I have asked the same question over and over again for years. As I understand it, the colonists believed (see the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence) that some rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally was property), were God-given and superceded the rule of kings. In addition, the law of England allowed the colonists the right to request redress of grievances in the form of withholding tax money until the king addressed their grievances. Even though the colonists repeatedly pleaded for King George to address their grievances, he ignored them.
> 
> They were, as I see it, justified in rebelling. What I have found interesting is that many of the colonists refused to fight the British until British soldiers actually stepped foot on their property and started killing their familes and destroying their crops.




 And the same reasoning gave the Confederacy the right to secede.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Feb 9, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> If a man breaks into our house, we are allowed to shoot them (almost all on the pB seem to say so), but if the man breaks in and successfully carries us off and knocks us out and we wake up as slaves, are we all not agreed that we have a duty to escape and even harm the one who imprisoned us, or do we need to grin and bear it now that we have become slaves?
> 
> If a man tries to rape a woman, she can kill him in self-defense. But if that man forces a marriage on her and then demands his rights, she then must submit and not flee the forced marriage?



Exactly! You and your family are to follow 1 Peter 2:18 to the letter. You are now slaves. How you got in that condition does not matter. How they treat you is not the topic of this thread. The only focus is the fact that you are now a slave and must comport yourself as a slave who believes in Christ. The one who knocked you out is now your master who you must obey. Ridiculous.


----------



## satz (Feb 9, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> Exactly! You and your family are to follow 1 Peter 2:18 to the letter. You are now slaves. How you got in that condition does not matter. How they treat you is not the topic of this thread. The only focus is the fact that you are now a slave and must comport yourself as a slave who believes in Christ. The one who knocked you out is now your master who you must obey. Ridiculous.



As a sincere question, what then is the application of 1 Peter 2:18-20, especially since Peter makes it a deliberate point that he is talking about unkind masters as well?


----------



## kalawine (Feb 9, 2009)

satz said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly! You and your family are to follow 1 Peter 2:18 to the letter. You are now slaves. How you got in that condition does not matter. How they treat you is not the topic of this thread. The only focus is the fact that you are now a slave and must comport yourself as a slave who believes in Christ. The one who knocked you out is now your master who you must obey. Ridiculous.
> ...



Matthew 20

25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Never knock the ministry of "servant." And BTW in answer to an earlier question ... yes, in the Bible, "slave" and "servant" are synonymous. Jesus came to be a slave.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Feb 9, 2009)

kalawine, 
Interesting because it seems they are two different words in the greek. Why didn't the writers just use the same word?

_"Never knock the ministry of servant"_ Why? According to you guys I have every right to knock the "ministry" of my servants/slaves around all I want. They are mine. They are not people but property. They are worth less to me than cow dung. Since the Bible speaks about what slaves are to do then it implies that there are masters who are behaving badly. So I have a Biblical right and mandate to behave badly in order that my slaves have something to be thankful for. 


satz,
The problem is most in the thread have zeroed in on "slave" and seem to have forgotten this was a "slave in the South." Which due to how he got into slavery was more than likely not a slave in his native lands. His status as slave meant nothing because it was placed on him and not his true status. If someone were to bop me over the head today and have me working in the fields in Africa tomorrow am I slave or have I been kidnapped? Do I plead with people _"Help me! I am a slave!"_ or do I scream that I have been kidnapped? Is the "status" my kidnapper proclaims me to have accurate? Am I required to sit there and take it? If I escape and return to the US does my kidnapper have any rights to me? If not, why not? Was I not his slave therefore his property.

Chattel slavery in the US was wrong. Not because it was slavery but because of how it was carried out from beginning to end. If those Afrikkans owed money or whatever the other reasons to go into slavery were then by all means. However that is not what occured in the US.

To answer your question 1 Peter is applicable when one is a slave and not someone who has been kidnapped.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2009)

I can understand the Peter verse if I sold myself into slavery, but if I were captured against my will, it seems that my first inclination would be to resist to the death of myself or the man-stealer.


----------



## Wanderer (Feb 9, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> Timothy William said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Feb 10, 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does scripture not intend to address people born into slavery to be obedient as opposed to those captured as war trophies as virtually every slave not born into shackles has been throughout history?


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 10, 2009)

Wanderer said:


> Hmm, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are God-given and supercede the rule of kings?
> 
> I don't want to sound un-American, but I've never been to sure of statements like this.
> 
> ...


Again, it wasn't a rebellion. See Webster's definition . . . 


> 1. One who revolts from the government to which he owes allegiance, either by openly renouncing the authority of that government, or by taking arms and openly opposing it. A rebel differs from an enemy, as the latter is one who does not owe allegiance to the government which he attacks. Num 17.


This does not apply to the colonists. If you are interested in seeing why, I would suggest reading what they wrote (such as the Fairfax Resolves and Declaration of Independence as mentioned before). What you are arguing for is the Divine Right of Kings. It is unbiblical. Like you said, ultimate allegiance is to the King of kings.

And check this out if you're interested . . . http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/reformation-resistance-lectures-notes-40396/


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 10, 2009)

satz said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> > Rebellion can only be against lawful authority. The King was the rebel:
> ...


Somewhat off topic, but addressing an issue raised:

British constitutional and legal theory of the area was sufficiently in flux to make the colonists' grievances, *including revolution*, constitutional. Serious arguments can be made that the colonists' rebellion was a constitutionally legitimate secession from the Empire, as a distinct right of British citizens, since at least 1688.

The United States Constitution has a strictly peaceful version of this principle in the people's right to convene a national constitutional convention, _completely_ independent of either their legislatures or the national government. Based on the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and subsequent constitutional provisions, the unwritten, but _nonetheless real_, British constitution at the time of the Revolution had a widely recognized right to replace an unlawful government, because Law was seen to trump both King and Parliament. One of the distinct rights of the British, that was seen as a _legal_ right pretty extensively, regardless of whether one thought the Americans were in the right, was the right to rise up and replace their government when it violated the constitution. Obviously 21st Century Britian is very different, but in 18th, secesssion or even revolution were widely recognized constitutional rights.

Oh yeah, and this side discussion probably needs a new thread in Politics.


----------



## Jon Lake (Feb 10, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> Chattel slavery, as used by those in the US, was a sin. Any man, woman, or child which found themselves in such a horrific position had every right to defend themselves. To this day we are still dealing with those who decided to defend their sin using scripture. It is akin to a Christian on Sunday profaning the Lord's name, slaps his mother, fornicates with his neighbors wife then kills her, steals the crucifix off her neck, and charges you as a law breaker because you call him a liar. How dare you bear false witness? He never lied.....


Amen! Those who attempt to apply the servant/slaves in Israel to both US slavery with Blacks (or any modern slavery) do grave injustice to the Biblical Texts and boarder on blasphemy. The International "Sex Trade/Slavery" is a booming business are we to look at what Moses wrote and attempt application to THAT! I hope not!


----------



## satz (Feb 10, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> ka
> 
> satz,
> The problem is most in the thread have zeroed in on "slave" and seem to have forgotten this was a "slave in the South." Which due to how he got into slavery was more than likely not a slave in his native lands. His status as slave meant nothing because it was placed on him and not his true status. If someone were to bop me over the head today and have me working in the fields in Africa tomorrow am I slave or have I been kidnapped? Do I plead with people _"Help me! I am a slave!"_ or do I scream that I have been kidnapped? Is the "status" my kidnapper proclaims me to have accurate? Am I required to sit there and take it? If I escape and return to the US does my kidnapper have any rights to me? If not, why not? Was I not his slave therefore his property.
> ...



I understand the distinction and I think it is a meaningful one. 

However, what about Joseph? He became a slave through the most unfair way, which was certainly just as bad as kidnapping. Yet after he was sold into slavery he served Potiphar faithfully. It seems to me he understood God's sovereignty in changing his status from free man (and child of the promise!) to slave to pagans. And he submitted and served faithfully.

In fact, after his faithful service was rewarded by a false conviction of rape, he contiuned to serve faithfully in prison.


----------



## TimV (Feb 10, 2009)

> The International "Sex Trade/Slavery" is a booming business are we to look at what Moses wrote and attempt application to THAT! I hope not!



If you hope not, the you don't know what Moses wrote about it.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 10, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > 1 Peter 2:18-20
> ...



[Moderator] Frank, consider this a friendly warning to sweeten your tone and refrain from accusing people of saying things they haven't said: this applies to the post I quoted and to some of your subsequent remarks as well.[/Moderator]


----------



## he beholds (Feb 10, 2009)

sastark said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > sastark said:
> ...



I personally think if a girl's parents give her to a man of their choosing, albeit against her own will, that would be a true marriage. I think a woman has always to submit to her husband, unless doing so causes her to actually sin. (I am not saying that I can accomplish this even with the person whom I love most in the world and most definitely chose.)



brianeschen said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > I very much agree that submission should and must only occur when it is lawful. What did the king do that was forcing the people to sin against God's law? Daniel and company obeyed the king until his law asked them to break God's. Paul was speaking to _Roman_ citizens, telling _them_ to obey their leaders. These are two examples of very ungodly leaders, where submission, and not revolt, is displayed for us as examples.
> ...



Could you please instead just give a summary of your ideas? I agree with Patrick Henry in "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death." I want just one of those two things, as well: liberty or death. I just don't know if my preference makes it right.  



SemperEruditio said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If a man breaks into our house, we are allowed to shoot them (almost all on the pB seem to say so), but if the man breaks in and successfully carries us off and knocks us out and we wake up as slaves, are we all not agreed that we have a duty to escape and even harm the one who imprisoned us, or do we need to grin and bear it now that we have become slaves?
> ...



I had no idea this was satire, for it actually represents my beliefs! I don't think submission is always given on a voluntary basis. There are people, for instance parents or police officers or, whom we have to obey despite our agreeing to do so. 



Jon Lake said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> > Chattel slavery, as used by those in the US, was a sin. Any man, woman, or child which found themselves in such a horrific position had every right to defend themselves. To this day we are still dealing with those who decided to defend their sin using scripture. It is akin to a Christian on Sunday profaning the Lord's name, slaps his mother, fornicates with his neighbors wife then kills her, steals the crucifix off her neck, and charges you as a law breaker because you call him a liar. How dare you bear false witness? He never lied.....
> ...



Well, if an authority was trying to force his subject to sin, ie: in this case, fornicate, I say he is allowed to be disobeyed, and in fact must be, as is in your power. (I am not saying that the victims of the sex trade are sinning...but for sure, what they are being told to do is sin. So I think it is absolutely scriptural to disobey!)


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 12, 2009)

he beholds said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> > The situations you mention in the Bible and the one our forefathers found themselves in is not analogous. I would be glad to discuss it on another thread.
> ...



My point is, the colonists were not acting as individuals (which is how these verses apply), but as a lawfully ordained lesser civil magistrate. They were perfectly within their rights as Englishmen, according to law, to do what they did. And in fact, that is how they argued (which is why I think it is a good idea for people to read the documents they wrote that lay this out). Otherwise we end up accusing people of rebellion (which is a heinous sin - 1 Sam 15) who were not rebels. 



he beholds said:


> Could you please instead just give a summary of your ideas?


Summary: the English had already established that the king too was bound by law (just a century earlier King Charles I was lawfully put death by parliament for his crimes). The king was not allowed to do whatever he wanted just because he was the king. The colonial legislatures (not individuals) were merely holding the king up to his end of the bargain and hence lawfully resisting his tyranny. They were asking him to follow the law. Hence you could say the king was the rebel. Just because someone is a king does not make him immune from the charge of being a rebel.

Furthermore, Parliament never had authority in the colonies. The colonies had their own legislative bodies granted to them by their charters (constitutional agreements with the British crown). Therefore the colonies had no legal obligation to obey any laws passed by Parliament. So to say that the colonists rebelled against Parliament would be like saying the United States are in rebellion for not following orders from the Canadian Parliament.

In short (or not so short as it is getting a bit long), the king was considered a rebel under English law. The colonies were upholding English law and were therefore not rebels. Remember too that the colonists were not a bunch of hot heads itching for a fight. They continually petitioned the King over a number of years and saw armed resistance as the last resort.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 12, 2009)

Thanks, Brian. That makes sense. That is what I mean by thinking it would be OK for some of us to secede, since our law continues to support that as being legal. So even if our president said, "No you cannot secede!" I would think there is a lawful way to do so that would not be sinning. I did not know that the English law had provisions for such a thing, but I am glad that it did. I completely see that according to our governments, even a king is to be under the law, so unless you have a dictator or tyrant who does supercede all law, I do think it would be permissible biblically to lawfully break away from a king, then.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 12, 2009)

Brian, you analogy re Canada/US does not hold. Since the Canadian House did not create the US House by an indepentant act.

The arguement that you made is the classic "we were not rebels" line that I have heard many times before. It sounds superficially plausible, but fails on a couple of key points.

If the colony existed by means of a Royal Charter that granted the rights you are assumeing, then a possible interpretation might be that Parliament had no authority over them. However as you stated the case the King is under the authority of Parliament, and so are his acts subject to their review, consent & administration.

Your theory depends on a view of the Powers of Kings of England (namely to grant a Soveriegn Constitution to subjects, without any oversight by Parliament!) that NO English King ever claimed! You grant King George powers he never asked for or claimed, on the one hand. Then on the other hand you deny the "Mother Of Pariaments" powers that you subsequently claim to be fundamental priveleges of her children (the rebelious colonial legislatures).

I am unconvinced.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 12, 2009)

Kevin said:


> Brian, you analogy re Canada/US does not hold. Since the Canadian House did not create the US House by an indepentant act.
> 
> The arguement that you made is the classic "we were not rebels" line that I have heard many times before. It sounds superficially plausible, but fails on a couple of key points.
> 
> ...


My argument was that the King was subject to the law and that Parliament had the right to enforce it. Just because the Parliament had the right to force the king to obey the law, it does not follow that they had authority over the colonies. Their jurisdiction can only go so far as the law allows as well. Just as the King can not do as he wishes because he is king, so too the Parliament is subject to law. Parliamentary authority was never granted by the colonies. Again, read their arguments.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 12, 2009)

I think we agree that; the King is subject to the law. That Paliament is supreme. 

The issue I have with the view you are advocating is that it relys on a major unproven assumption.

That the colonies, qua colonies, had the right, or ability to "grant" parliament authority over them. In other words,, you are positing a new font of authority, not the King, not the constitution, not Parliament, but an entity that simply appears, ex nihilo called "The Colonies".

For your "we are not rebels" thesis to be valid (in my opinion) the "colonies" must be the source of all authority. The trouble arises of course, because no actually believes this. The debate always shifts to a Royal Charter, or limitations on Parliamentry authority, etc.

But the colonies have origins. They have charters. The people who inhabit them are the citizens of *some* jurisdiction, either a king or a parliament, or a constitution.

Your view depends on seeing the colonies as unique, new entities that simply appeared with certain Rights.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 12, 2009)

Right (except that I do not think Parliament is supreme). The colonies were under the jurisdiction of the King and their own legislative bodies and governors . . . not that of the Parliament. That is precisely the legal argument the colonies used. Of course the King and Parliament did not see it that way . . . hence the war. There were several members in Parliament who sided with the colonies, unfortunately they were in the minority. War could have been avoided, on the part of the colonies if they submitted to slavery, and on the part of the English crown if it maintained and protected the rights of the English colonies in America.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 12, 2009)

Or, war could have been avoided if they had put the issue to a popular vote! I don't think any colony had a majority of support for the war party.

Now, you may not agree brother, but the operating legal principle was "Supremacy of Parliament". And, BTW you live in a country that adopted that principle into it's constitution.

AND, your theory is that the (local) parliament is, in fact something very close to supreme.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the issue is a bit more tawdry then any nobel claim about "interposition of lesser magistrates". The fact is that New England merchantile interests objected to the growth of imperial free trade & the resultant reduction of prices (for consumers) & the loss of monopoly priviledges (for them).


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 12, 2009)

Kevin said:


> Or, war could have been avoided if they had put the issue to a popular vote! I don't think any colony had a majority of support for the war party.
> 
> Now, you may not agree brother, but the operating legal principle was "Supremacy of Parliament". And, BTW you live in a country that adopted that principle into it's constitution.
> 
> ...


This is where we will have to disagree. Even in our land, the Congress is not supreme, nor the "local parliament." Total supremacy in any man or group of men was flatly rejected in this country. That is why our founding document appeals to the Creator. There are certain rights that no king or parliament may take away. 

I will agree with you however that the mercantile interests weighed heavily on the British end of things.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 12, 2009)

I think you missed my point.

In the US no court or president has more power (in theory) then the houses of congress. This doctrine is called "The Supremacy of Parlaiment". Only congress can overrule the other branches of government, or itself.


----------



## TimV (Feb 12, 2009)

> In the US no court or president has more power (in theory) then the houses of congress. This doctrine is called "The Supremacy of Parlaiment". Only congress can overrule the other branches of government, or itself.



I think the theory is taken from (originally) the idea of the Trinity, where the separation of powers is very different than the then British system. I think the founders were looking more at Holland than the UK, and the very word name United States is a copy of what the Dutch called their country at the time.

So, Congress, the President and the courts all in theory have the same power.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 12, 2009)

Except that, unlike the trinity, the congress my limit the power of the Supreme Court & may impeach the President.


----------

