# The morality of Slavery in History and Natural Law



## caddy

Of course this human institution exists because we are sinful men and women. We will continue to treat our fellow man with disdain. 

For instance. I received this from a friend concerning the subject:

In Rome, slavery WAS the norm. It was so in Greece before that. They had Democracy and slavery at the same time. Western society is based on those cultures, slavery is part of our history. It used to be considered "ok", and fairly recently in the US. More and more people considered it wrong, and now everyone consideres it wrong. Evolving moral values.


AT THE TIME, the MAINSTREAM moral values said that slavery was ok. Therefore it was enshrined in law. Most people thought it was ok. Those were the mainstream moral values. People who denied these values were the fringe at the time, the agitators, the weirdos. I bet there were many people such as yoursefl in those days who could quote every holy book passage, claimed they were "chosen by God", denounced homosexuals, and owned slaves

Another example: marrying 12-year-olds. It used to be ok when the average lifespan was 30 years. Now it's totally wrong and immoral. Did God change his mind about that too or were all these people sinners?


Even Aristotle and many others claimed that slavery was "natural", but we knew better then and we know better now. They were wrong. It is not natural and it was never "_moral"_. Slavery is about one being using another being merely as a means to its ends. Sinful men have always enslaved men simply because they are sinful. They will continue to do so. America's long battle with it and Nelson Mandela's troubles have helped to bring our collective consciouses where they always should have been, but each man and each generation will fight that battle on their own. Men and women who are enslaved know it is unnatural. They know it and feel it in their souls. Many accept their plight, knowing they can do nothing about it. Those who enslave--at the beginning at least--KNOW they are doing wrong. As time goes on, however, their conscioius' are seered and they begin to think it is "natural." It isn't. They know all better. Each will be judged for "_missing the mark_."

Does anyone have any other thoughts on this horrible institution as it relates to natural law?


----------



## Wannabee

caddy said:


> Does anyone have any other thoughts on this horrible institution as it relates to natural law?


Well, I'll comment. But I don't think this is what you're looking for.

All men are "naturally" slaves to sin. The elect have been bought with a price and given the freedom to become slaves of Christ. Slavery is natural, and all men are slaves. 

I know that's not what you're asking though. So, with that aside, Scripture makes it clear that God ordained slavery. It was a means by which a man could pay off debt. It is equally clear that slaves were bought and sold, and if one chose to he could enslave himself to his owner for the rest of his life (Ex 21; Deu 15). In Jeremiah we repeatedly see God commanding the Israelites to serve Babylon. In context it becomes clear that this is a 70 year slavery. Paul tells slaves to serve their masters well, and slave owners to treat their slaves well. Nowhere does he command the slave owners to free their slaves. Some argument may be given in regard to Paul's letter to Philemon (15 For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.), but it is inconclusive. 

Nowhere does Scripture denounce slavery itself. The reality is that slavery, in and of itself, is not immoral. It is the reason for the slavery that makes it immoral. Enslavement based on ethnicity, age, sex, religion, geography, and such are instances of the strong or powerful imposing their will over the weak or minority. This is, as you say, "about one being using another being merely as a means to its ends.." However, as punishment for crimes it was once common practice in some cultures to make the guilty party serve their victim for a certain amount of time. Is this any more immoral than locking them up? It has also been common to make the soldiers of a conquered enemy serve as slaves. Should they be executed instead?

Much of the misunderstanding in regard to slavery is in light of the cruelty that has accompanied it in some areas during certain periods of time. But in many cultures the slaves were treated like family members. This is also true of American slavery in some instances. Although the reason for the slavery here could never be vindicated, not all slaves were treated poorly. But that's another topic for another day.

So, I don't know that slavery (outside spiritual) is natural. But the morality of it is based on the reason and the treatment involved, not on the existence of the institution itself. Man's dignity as God's image bearer should never be misplaced, regardless of ethnicity, creed or inherent factors. And please, don't turn my statements into some endorsement of slavery (I've experienced this irresponsible overreaction before). I simply made biblical and historical observations.


----------



## k.seymore

We certainly have people work off some types of debt and consider it acceptable in our culture. I'm sure everyone has seen people working off certain things by cleaning up trash on the side of the road, etc.
And in my hometown there was a minimum security prison and they would come down and do supervised manual labor in town. We just don't call that slavery anymore because we reserve that word for forced slavery. Paul includes this type of forced slavery under one of his lists of immorality:

"the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for... enslavers" (1Tim 1:9-10)

But it is at least true that we humans' understanding and maturity evolves in regards to understanding the fulness of our sins. And so God accommodates the application of his law in certain senses in regard to our fallen-ness:

"Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." (Matt 19:8)

Perhaps the allowance of divorce has some parallels to the allowance of other things in the law that we now consider immoral.


----------



## Pergamum

Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.

God in the OT regulated some sinful practices, such as divorce and polygamy, but did not condone it. Slavery was one such sin. God regulated it for a time.

While at some times men have voluntarily indentured themselves to pay off debt, or were consigned to manual labor for the conviction of crimes, the black chattel slavery in the US did not fall into those two categories, even though some on this board will try to convince you that the salvery that led to the US Civil War was not sinful. It was, and our nation paid dearly. The cozy picture of slaves and slaveowners living in harmony together in the antebellum south is a fiction.


As it relates to natural law, I suppose someone could argue from reason that since man differs in abilities and intelligence and some nations have "progressed" further than others, that it is not quite unnatural that one nation should rule over another such that the "inferior" nation becomes slaves. 



On the bigger issue of evolving moral values: The world does seem to be developing and/or changing in morals. Old sins are exchanged for new sins. Some sins disapear all together. Cannibalism is no longer practiced in the context of whole tribal groups and only occur in bizarre murder cases like Dahmer. Polygamy, slavery, child sacrifice to pagan Gods, religious wars are all on the outs. Now, we manufacture new sins to take their place... and sometimes sins largely disapear altogether. Slavery, for instance has largely disapeared. I don't know if this is because God is moving the world forward and the world is gradually getting better. but I am glad that this phase of history is over.


God certainly did not change his mind on these laws. He did bring the Israelites to greater maturity by specific law injunctions. He did deal with them as children, and so God's revealtion did progress as history progressed (eg, the doctrine of the Trinity becomes clearer and clearer as hisotry advances)...


----------



## RamistThomist

The 13th amendment still has slavery on the books.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Spear Dane said:


> The 13th amendment still has slavery on the books.


right to bare arms is still on the books and yet I have to get a license to get a gun???????? we are an unconstitutional constitutional republic.


----------



## caddy

Pergamum said:


> Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.


 
Oh I know. I am familiar with Dabney. I have read some of his work. He was a good theologian, but still a sinful man like the rest of us. 

Appreciate the comments.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Spear Dane said:


> The 13th amendment still has slavery on the books.


 
Yes the 13th amendment allows for involuntary servitude in the evet of a crime.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Pergamum said:


> Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.
> 
> God in the OT regulated some sinful practices, such as divorce and polygamy, but did not condone it. Slavery was one such sin. God regulated it for a time.
> 
> While at some times men have voluntarily indentured themselves to pay off debt, or were consigned to manual labor for the conviction of crimes, the black chattel slavery in the US did not fall into those two categories, even though some on this board will try to convince you that the salvery that led to the US Civil War was not sinful. It was, and our nation paid dearly. The cozy picture of slaves and slaveowners living in harmony together in the antebellum south is a fiction.
> 
> 
> As it relates to natural law, I suppose someone could argue from reason that since man differs in abilities and intelligence and some nations have "progressed" further than others, that it is not quite unnatural that one nation should rule over another such that the "inferior" nation becomes slaves.


 
I haven't researched statistical inferences of relations between masters and slaves in the U.S, perhaps some were more benevolent than others. I do know slaves were very expensive, so completely abusing or killing a slave would not be a smart business practice, espeically if you needed their work. This is why for the really dangerous jobs slaves weren't even used, they'd just go hire an irish man to do it. 

But in any case I don't know... just the very mindset of owning a slave, not because of anything he did (crime, debt, whatever the bible seems to condone on this matter) but because of a percieved racial or national inferiority does not seem to be moral biblically. But then again what about the claim that it was good that the Europeans brought civilization and Christianity to Africa and other what we consider 3rd world nations. Surely the Lord does work all things together for good, even sin, but the means of sin is never condoned on our part as good simply because God used it for a good end. We're all still held accountable, and I'm sure many slave masters have been held accountable. Although its a bit ironic, I take comfort and fear in God's justice.


----------



## Wannabee

caddy said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know. I am familiar with Dabney. I have read some of his work. He was a good theologian, but still a sinful man like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I haven't read Dabney. Can someone give me a synopsis?


----------



## RamistThomist

Wannabee said:


> caddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know. I am familiar with Dabney. I have read some of his work. He was a good theologian, but still a sinful man like the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't read Dabney. Can someone give me a synopsis?
Click to expand...


Dabney both defended and critiqued racial slavery. 

The error with Dabney is that the bible didn't make the racial distinction that he made. But what Dabney saw that we are all-too embarrassed about is that the Bible didn't start apologizing--like we do--for slavery. Dabney was also put in a hard place because many of the abolitionists were Christ-hating Unitarians. But Dabney was prescient enough to see that the infidel rhetoric of the Unitarians would harden the minds of Southern Christians, which sadly happened.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.



care to name some examples and proof of what you are speaking?


----------



## turmeric

I can see a Biblical justification for indentured servitude, called "slavery" in some translations of Leviticus; also God allowed for real slavery of other nations conquered in war, which, compared to the Hareem(sp?) seems merciful. This was the common practice in Greece and Rome, these were captured people who weren't put to death, and they could eventually earn or buy their freedom and even citizenship.

I don't think the Bible justifies racial slavery as we knew it in the United States. The 13th Ammendment appears to allow for "chain gangs".


----------



## Pergamum

Spear Dane said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> care to name some examples and proof of what you are speaking?
Click to expand...




I believe it was YOU that said "The South [Dabney] was correct to say that the Bible sanctioned salvery." on 5-16-2004, on the post "R Dabney and Slavery.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> care to name some examples and proof of what you are speaking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was YOU that said "The South [Dabney] was correct to say that the Bible sanctioned salvery." on 5-16-2004, on the post "R Dabney and Slavery.
Click to expand...


So? The bible does sanction slavery. To deny that is to deny God's word. Now, as I made clear--and you left out--the bible does not sanction racial slavery, but that does not mean that it doesn't sanction any kind of slavery at all. As history makes abundantly clear, there are many types of slavery. Slavery isn't some vague, abstract evil principle.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

joshua said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though some on this board will try to convince you that the salvery that led to the US Civil War...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It wasn't a _Civil_ War. Was the War for independence from Britain a _Civil _War? No. The Americans weren't trying to take control of British Parliament. Just like the Southerners were not trying to gain hold of Washington. They just wanted to be freed from it.
> 
> 2. Slavery did not lead to the War.
> 
> 3. I don't use Dabney for a source when it comes to defending Southern history. I can't cite the source right now, but I've read some things wherein he discusses racial issues "biblically" and he's way off, quite disappointing actually. By that, I'm noting that slavery *was* an injustice. But it was one both the North and South shared. And we also can be thankful for God's providence and how He uses evil for good.
> 
> 4. My God is not Southern. He's Lord. I don't wear confederate flag shirts and wave them around (although, there's nothing wrong with that). I want to be faithful to Him. But at the same time, I don't like the demonization of the South that exists in these times or the exaltation of Lincoln as a great emancipator or humanitarian. He was a tyrant, dictator, white supermacist, and a big government, big spender, big brother liberal.
> 
> 5. I love my Yankee brethren. And I love you. And I don't want your bud light. I hate racism. I do not support slavery. I hate affirmative action. I hate the idea of reparations. I hate the sinfulness of man. I hate my sin. And sometimes...I hate history, because we all come down on different sides sometimes at the cost of edification of others.
> 
> Ok. I hope none of that came across wrong. I hope I wasn't unclear. I hope I'm not reviled for it. Godspeed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

joshua said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though some on this board will try to convince you that the salvery that led to the US Civil War...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It wasn't a _Civil_ War. Was the War for independence from Britain a _Civil _War? No. The Americans weren't trying to take control of British Parliament. Just like the Southerners were not trying to gain hold of Washington. They just wanted to be freed from it.
> 
> 2. Slavery did not lead to the War.
> 
> 3. I don't use Dabney for a source when it comes to defending Southern history. I can't cite the source right now, but I've read some things wherein he discusses racial issues "biblically" and he's way off, quite disappointing actually. By that, I'm noting that slavery *was* an injustice. But it was one both the North and South shared. And we also can be thankful for God's providence and how He uses evil for good.
> 
> 4. My God is not Southern. He's Lord. I don't wear confederate flag shirts and wave them around (although, there's nothing wrong with that). I want to be faithful to Him. But at the same time, I don't like the demonization of the South that exists in these times or the exaltation of Lincoln as a great emancipator or humanitarian. He was a tyrant, dictator, white supermacist, and a big government, big spender, big brother liberal.
> 
> 5. I love my Yankee brethren. And I love you. And I don't want your bud light. I hate racism. I do not support slavery. I hate affirmative action. I hate the idea of reparations. I hate the sinfulness of man. I hate my sin. And sometimes...I hate history, because we all come down on different sides sometimes at the cost of edification of others.
> 
> Ok. I hope none of that came across wrong. I hope I wasn't unclear. I hope I'm not reviled for it. Godspeed.
Click to expand...





Well said!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Spear Dane said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> care to name some examples and proof of what you are speaking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was YOU that said "The South [Dabney] was correct to say that the Bible sanctioned salvery." on 5-16-2004, on the post "R Dabney and Slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? The bible does sanction slavery. To deny that is to deny God's word. Now, as I made clear--and you left out--the bible does not sanction racial slavery, but that does not mean that it doesn't sanction any kind of slavery at all. As history makes abundantly clear, there are many types of slavery. Slavery isn't some vague, abstract evil principle.
Click to expand...


I wish people would realise that while Southern slavery may have been wrong; the Civil war led to a much worse form of slavery: Statism. If you do not believe me, then read the early chapters of Exodus and 1 Samuel 8 and compare them to what exists in most nations today. All of us are enslaved to Julius Caesar.

Also, see the chapter on "Christianity versus Statism" in my new book _A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government_, when it eventually comes out.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

In the 2007 _Confessional Presbyterian_ journal, there is an interesting article by C. N. Willborn, entitled "Presbyterians in the South and the Slave: A Study in Benevolence."


----------



## k.seymore

I always found it ironic that the North portrays the fight as if it was about freeing many individual slaves from their master, and the South portrays the fight about keeping many individual states free from having one central master. Who are we kidding? That is true unity: we're all hypocrites.


----------



## RamistThomist

I thought about pasting some Lincoln quotes where Lincoln made clear his belief in the inferiority of black people, but I will refrain myself. I will restate my former point: If someone makes a categorical claim that Slavery is evil, then they will have problems with the Bible when the bible doesn't share the same view. 

Commentators and study bibles will go to great lengths to make plain that slavery was an existing evil and Paul *secretly* wanted to subvert it, but that can't be found in the text.


----------



## turmeric

I think what I have seen endorsed on this board is the belief the the War Between the States was not a civil war but a war of Northern aggression; and that the South would possibly have abolished race-slavery on its own had history been allowed to play itself out, and that "affirmative action" is a Statist thing. I don't think I've *ever* seen race-slavery endorsed on this board.


----------



## k.seymore

Spear Dane said:


> I thought about pasting some Lincoln quotes where Lincoln made clear his belief in the inferiority of black people, but I will refrain myself. I will restate my former point: If someone makes a categorical claim that Slavery is evil, then they will have problems with the Bible when the bible doesn't share the same view.
> 
> Commentators and study bibles will go to great lengths to make plain that slavery was an existing evil and Paul *secretly* wanted to subvert it, but that can't be found in the text.



You mean like how it isn't found in this text?

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, *enslavers*, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." (1Tim 1:8-11)

Although I guess people have explained away many of the other sins listed, so one could probably justify their beliefs about forcing people to serve as slaves as well...


----------



## turmeric

My 1611 says "menstealers". I would think that means "enslavers" but I wouldn't want to die on that hill. Not sure that's what Paul meant though it stands to reason...


----------



## RamistThomist

k.seymore said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought about pasting some Lincoln quotes where Lincoln made clear his belief in the inferiority of black people, but I will refrain myself. I will restate my former point: If someone makes a categorical claim that Slavery is evil, then they will have problems with the Bible when the bible doesn't share the same view.
> 
> Commentators and study bibles will go to great lengths to make plain that slavery was an existing evil and Paul *secretly* wanted to subvert it, but that can't be found in the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how it isn't found in this text?
> 
> "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, *enslavers*, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." (1Tim 1:8-11)
> 
> Although I guess people have explained away many of the other sins listed, so one could probably justify their beliefs about forcing people to serve as slaves as well...
Click to expand...


As a former, chastened post-theonomist, I despise kidnapping with all my heart. It is a clear example of the need for the death penalty. The OT allowed for voluntary (except in war or crimes) servitude, which precludes kidnapping. Of course, if it means "enslaving" rather than "kidnapping," then the only type of biblical slavery would be indentured servitude. 

I thought about derailing the thread on the subject of kidnapping and modern sexual slavery. Given that fact, I would immediately ask the anti-theonomists if they thought the death penalty on kidnapping was still binding in the New Covenant era.


----------



## k.seymore

Yeah, Paul may be thinking of verses like the following which are definitely speaking of kidnapping, but it appears from this verse that it is assumed that a person kidnaps in order to enslave:
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." (Ex 21:16)


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Lev 25:39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
Lev 25:40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:
Lev 25:41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
Lev 25:42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
Lev 25:43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God. 
Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


----------



## RamistThomist

but if we are to be consistent, slaves are to be freed every seven or 49 years.


----------



## turmeric

only the indentured Hebrews, I think


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> On the bigger issue of evolving moral values: The world does seem to be developing and/or changing in morals. Old sins are exchanged for new sins. Some sins disapear all together. Cannibalism is no longer practiced in the context of whole tribal groups and only occur in bizarre murder cases like Dahmer. Polygamy, slavery, child sacrifice to pagan Gods, religious wars are all on the outs. Now, we manufacture new sins to take their place... and sometimes sins largely disapear altogether. *Slavery, for instance has largely disapeared.* I don't know if this is because God is moving the world forward and the world is gradually getting better. but I am glad that this phase of history is over.


 (emphasis added)

If you mean that certain forms of slavery are technically illegal in most countries on the planet, then that's true. But I believe the actual practice is alive and well.


----------



## Wannabee

Well said Joshua!


joshua said:


> My God is not Southern. He's Lord... I want to be faithful to Him. But at the same time, I don't like the demonization of the South that exists in these times or the exaltation of Lincoln as a great emancipator or humanitarian. He was a tyrant, dictator, white supermacist, and a big government, big spender, big brother liberal.
> ...
> Ok. I hope none of that came across wrong. I hope I wasn't unclear. I hope I'm not reviled for it. Godspeed.


I know I feel better.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is a summary of how most posts go on the PB about slavery, the Civil War, or southern culture:

Before I write these, let me say that I love you guys and respect and consider many of you dear. I love your advice and your posts on the PB.

Now, for my response:


A list of predictable PB responses to issues of slavery, the South, and the Civil War:


TYPICAL RESPONSE 1). People object to the use of the term Civil War, even though the South began aggressions by ceasing federally owned arsenals along th coastline.

Most definitions of a civil war state that a civil war "is a war within a country between two sides of countrymen." Thus, it WAS a civil war. 

A "revolution" is when the aim is to overthrow of the gov't. 
If it fails if is usually called merely a "revolt." Or it is merely called a rebellion, as in rebellion against one's country.

Those Southrons, were called "Rebels" were they not? Who were they rebelling against? Their country.


TYPICAL RESPONSE 2). People respond that many blessings of slavery occured due to slaves being shipped to our "Christian" nation. They had it better than a lot of freemen did they not? The American South was after all under strong Christian influence whereas if they did not get stolen from Africa they would still be in their sins. I am sure that the slaves readily were aware of these blessings. They were still slaves. 


TYPICAL RESPONSE 3) Many people mention that a lot of these slaves, though they were viewed as property, lived pretty good and in the households of their masters. 

Some pigs do too, but they are still considered subhuman and property and this is ALWAYS a sin to consider someone as property.


TYPICAL RESPONSE 4). Many people begin to hammer the drum for Southern pride about preserving their heritage. Fine, be proud you are Southern. It doesn't remove the historical stain of your forefathers if they owned or advocated slavery.

TYPICAL RESPONSE 5). People mention the evils of reconstruction or northern Statism. The evils of slavery are smaller than the evils of the North, so the logic goes. 

But, this reconstruction was planned as very mild, until a southern "patriot" put a bullet in Lincoln's head. 

When northern Statism or evil is mentioned, remind yourself of this: It is significent that Lee and other southern generals were reprieved and allowed to teach at major universities and none served any time for rebellion against their country. This shows remarkable mercy to rebels. Many insurgents or "freedom fighters" are hung after losing a war.

Also, the Federal gov't (not without flaws) poured much money into the South to rebuild it, and many times southern opposition hampered or slowed down the progress. Politically, the rise of the KKK and the Jim Crow laws bred further divide between the races. Southerners, don't try to pass the buck!


TYPICAL RESPONSE 6). People (on the PB) also, when responding to issues of slavery, the South and the Civil War, also try to compare southern slavery with indentured servanthood. But indenturement was voluntary for a speific time in order to work out a debt. My forefathers came to Virginia under Governor Yeardley under a 7 year contract (work 7 years, get boat fare and some land to farm). The American slaves rarely had any such contracts. They were bought and sold like cattle.

One more time: Indentured servanthood is not the same as slavery. Slavery is being taken against your will when you have done nothing to deserve it. Indentured servanthood is to work out a contract or be forced to work for a term to pay for a crime (i/e chain gangs, etc). Slavery is wrong.


TYPICAL RESPONSE 7). People also then compare southern slavery with Roman slavery. And again, it is mentioned that many slaves had important roles in peoples homes. 

Well, some pets have key roles in the home and people love their dogs, too. A man's PROPERTY is dear to him. Man should never be treated as property, though, and to do so is sin.


TYPICAL RESPONSE 8). People bring up OT legislation of slavery and mention that the OT never condemns slavery (though the NT seems to allude that slavery is contrary to the love of Christ). 

But legislation is different from endorsement. After all, the OT never condemns polygamy and a polygamy thread just got closed recently. Not ONE time is polygamy EVER denounced as sin, but most here would call it sin because it violates principles of Scripture.

The OT legislates divorce as well. THese are not endorsements, however, and arguments to condone slavery cannot be pulled from Scripture.

Slavery falls into the same category.

If manstealers will not uinherent the kingdom of God, what about those who profit from the labors of manstealers? What about an entire agrarian southern culture whose economy was, for the most part based upon the product of manstealing?


TYPICAL RESPONSE 9). People on the PB bring up that racial slavery was wrong but that slavery is not inherently wrong. As if slavery is okay, but as long as we enslave others not based on race.....that seems like a very weak logic.

TYPICAL RESPONSE 10) People respond that all sinners are slaves to sin. Yes.....but how does that relate to real live actual slavery. 

TYPICAL RESPONSE 11) People denounce Lincoln and show he evil he was and mention or quote Lincoln's awful statements about the blacks. Yes, but what does that prove? I am glad that an evil man could have the leadership to end this evil practice of salvery despite his own hangups.



I have been asked to name names. What purpose will that prove? 

_______, ____ and _____ (in a past thread) and I am sure others say that the Bible does not teach that slavery is wrong, though they still want to distance themselves from Southern slavery or "racial" slavery. Their comments are readable on the PB archives or on this thread.


My emphatic assertion is that all slavery is inherently evil. I assert that the OT legislated it for a time just like divorce and polygamy, but never endorsed it. 

I am also grieved because when it comes up on the PB, the response is always a lot of excuse making or throwing insults at the North or getting into side issues or making comments that distract or serve to lessen the reality that, yes, it was evil. 

The responses are often, yes, but...the North was worse....etc. Or yes, but ....I am still proud of my heritage, or yes, but Lincoln was a racist too, etc...

Again, my assertion is that slavery makes man a property to be bought and sold and is always evil. And yes, while many on the PB might condemn the Southern slavery, they do not go far enough and condemn slavery inherently.


----------



## Pergamum

Josh:

I'll return the love... Threads on the War Between the States (there...a concession), and slavery always get even more heated than the baptism threads (if that be possible). I plan to post extra slow and try to remember my love for the brethren from here on out (scout's honor).


Perhaps this goes back to my personal reactions against several calvinistic southern churches that actually told jokes about "colored boys" from the pulpit and than lionized the South. So, maybe I am reactionary, but I have seen people romanticize this era of American history even from the pulpit. This seems like it happens more than rarely among southern and calvinistic churches.

As for as the names I gave, I am editing those out. 

But, I could directly quote them as saying that the Bible defends slavery (maybe not Southern slavery, I don't know..but any defense of involuntarily slavery is an advocation for a horrible sin). They each spoke of slavery being Biblically permissible. To me, it seems that slavery in inherently evil, and no amount of taming the practice can make it not sin, and so I quoted these three names from past threads because I had two people request this and felt compelled to provide further proof (these past threads are easily accessible by the search feature and I could post the links if needed). There were more on those threads that also spoke of slavery being Biblical. 

Whether this constitutes "many" or just "a few" I don't know. Depending on your definiton of "many" defines whether ornot my accusations are erronous or not. And they are more than accusations, I can provide direct quotes that state that slavery is biblically permissible (if we would just do it right, I guess is the fulll argument). The number of PB posters is 3 too many I know.


A parting word: Much grace to all of you. We are brethrne in Christ and I feel priveleged to be among you saints on this board. I am passionate about this issue and am assertive in my claims. But that never diminishes any love or respect towards you all.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> People bring up OT legislation of slavery and mention that the OT never condemns slavery (though the NT seems to allude that slavery is contrary to the love of Christ).
> 
> But legislation is different from endorsement. After all, the OT never condemns polygamy and a polygamy thread just got closed recently. Not ONE time is polygamy EVER denounced as sin, but most here would call it sin because it violates principles of Scripture.
> 
> The OT legislates divorce as well. THese are not endorsements, however, and arguments to condone slavery cannot be pulled from Scripture.
> 
> Slavery falls into the same category.
> 
> If manstealers will not uinherent the kingdom of God, what about those who profit from the labors of manstealers? What about an entire agrarian southern culture whose economy was, for the most part based upon the product of manstealing?



Slavery in the Older Testament was indentured servetude, which was a punishment for criminals who could not make restitution. It is a different thing from manstealing, though no Christian should every voluntarily enslave himself: he has been bought at the price of Christ's blood, therefore he is not to be the slave of men.

Southern slavery was not this kind of slavery, therefore it was wrong. However, that family-based form of private slavery was replaced by state slavery. Israel were slaves in Egypt, but God redeemed them from the house of slavery (Ex. 20:1) - the totalitarian Egyptian state. After the civil war, the black slaves were emancipated from their private owners, but enslaved to Washington.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> It is significent that Lee and other southern generals were reprieved and allowed to teach at major universities and none served any time for rebellion against their country. This shows remarkable mercy to rebels. Many insurgents or "freedom fighters" are hung after losing a war.



The Southern States were no more rebels any more than the Colonists were in the war of independence. They were seceding from a federal union which was overturning the rights of the states. Moreover, since the secession was carried out by civil magistrates, not by private individuals, it was not an insurrection like that of the PLO or ANC and was fully in line with Romans 13 and the secession of the northern tribes from Rehoboam's tyranny.

The real rebels were the Northerners, who being inspired by a bunch of radicals, used slavery as an excuse to invade the south and carry out a brutal war against not only the military, but also the civilian population. As a result of the war between the states, America has gone from being a land of the free, to a system of centralised tyranny. 

Southern slavery could, and should, have been phased out gradually by the states. Of course, it is worth remembering that the black people were slaves in Africa to begin with.


----------



## RamistThomist

And also black people were enslaved by *Africans.* The slaves didn't just magically appear on the slave ships. The Africans (and some profiteering Europeans) were the kidnappers.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Also remember that at the time of the war there were five union states that still had slaves. Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri. They were not freed until after the war. If the war was about slavery, why were these not freed first?


----------



## turmeric

How did this get in the Natural Revelation forum?


----------



## RamistThomist

turmeric said:


> How did this get in the Natural Revelation forum?



1) Natural law is deduced from Natural Revelation
2) Almost all natural law theories, in practice, allowed for slavery
------------------------------------------------
(C) Natural revelation allows for slavery.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I moved from I think General Discussion because of the opening post.


----------



## caddy

k.seymore said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought about pasting some Lincoln quotes where Lincoln made clear his belief in the inferiority of black people, but I will refrain myself. I will restate my former point: If someone makes a categorical claim that Slavery is evil, then they will have problems with the Bible when the bible doesn't share the same view.
> 
> Commentators and study bibles will go to great lengths to make plain that slavery was an existing evil and Paul *secretly* wanted to subvert it, but that can't be found in the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how it isn't found in this text?
> 
> "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, *enslavers*, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." (1Tim 1:8-11)
> 
> Although I guess people have explained away many of the other sins listed, so one could probably justify their beliefs about forcing people to serve as slaves as well...
Click to expand...

 
From Matthew Poole Concerning 1 Timothy 1:10 ( Enslavers--or "Men-stealers ): the word signified such as carry men into captivity, or make slaves of them in the first place; it signifies also any stealing of men. It is probable the first of these is the man -stealing principally intended, being the most common sin by pirates at sea, and soldiers at land; yet not excluding any other stealing of men from their relations, which he instanced in, as one of the highest violations of the 8th commandment.

From J. Budziszewski's _What We Can't Not Know_:

It is hard enough to face the moral law even _with_ the revelation that divine justice and divine mercy are conjoined. It offends our pride to be forgiven, terrifies it to surrender control. Without the possibility of forgiveness, how could we ever bear to face how wrong we had been about anything, how could we ever bear to change our minds? The history of ethics would be a history of digging in against plain truths. Consider how many centuries it took natural law thinkers, even in the Christian tradition, to work out the implications of the brotherhood of master and slave. At least they did eventually. Outside of the biblical orbit, no one ever did--not spontaneously.

On the subject in Wiki itself: Christianity and Slavery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery
Both the Old and New Testaments recognize and accept the institution of slavery (though this was more akin to bonded labor, without any of the racial and dehumanizing connotations of the slavery practiced in the southern United States and elsewhere). 

I must admit, my thoughts were primarily focused on the injustice of "racial slavery," but this thread has served to show that there are many types of slavery. The Bible allows many things without sanctioning them or condoning them. 

Interesting also is what Rodney Stark has to say in his book, _The Victory of Reason_: 

While no one would argue that medieval peasants were free in the modern sense, they were not slaves, and that brutal institution had essentially disappeared from Europe by the end of the tenth century. Although most recent historians agree with that conclusion, it remains fashionable to deny that Christianity had anything to do with it. As Robert Fossier put it, "the progressive elimination of slavery was in no way the work of Christian peoples. The Church preached resignation, promised equality in the hereafter...[and] felt no compunction about keeping large herds of animals with human faces." Georges Duby also dismissed any role of the church in ending slavery: "Christianity did not condemn slavery; it dealt it barely a glancing blow." Rather slavery is said to have disappeared because it became unprofitable and outdated mode of production. Robert Lopez accepted this view, claiming that slavery ended only when technological progress such as the water wheel "made slaves useless or unproductive." Hence the claim that the end of slavery was not a moral decision but one of pure self-interest on the part of the elite. That same argument has been made concerning the abolition of slavery in the Western Hemisphere. Both claims are consistent, of course, with Marxist doctrine but are quite inconsistent with economic realities. Even as late as the start of the American Civil War, Southern slavery remained a very profitable "mode of production." The same was true in early medieval Europe. But enough, says Stark, Slavery ended in medieval Europe _only_ because the church extended its sacraments to ALL slaves and then managed to impose a ban on the enslavement of Christians ( and of Jews ). Within the context of medieval Europe, that prohibition was effectively a rule of universal abolition. 

In the beginning, the church asserted the legitimacy of slavery but did so with a certain ambiguity. Consider the most-citied New Testament passage on slavery. Writing to the Ephesians ( 6:5,8) Paul admonished: "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, in fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ...knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is slave or free." Those who eagerly quote this passage very seldom go on to quote the next verse: "Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him." That God treats all equally, says Stark, is fundamental to the Christian message: All may be saved. IT was this that encouraged the early church to convert slaves and when possible to purchase their freedom--Pope Callistus ( died 236 ) had himself been a slave.

With these last few sentences, I and many in this forum would take issue with Stark. Does God really treat all equally? I don't find that in Romans 9 that He does. We are told that he makes some vessels for honor others for dishonor. 

Pierre Bonnassie has expressed the matter as well as anyone: "A slave...was baptised [and] had a soul. He was, then unambiguously a man." With slaves fully recognized as human and Christian, priests began to urge owners to free their slaves as an "infinitely commendable act" that helped ensure their own salvation, says Stark. Many manumissions were recorded in surviving wills. The doctrine that slaves were humans and not cattle had another important consequence: inter-marriage. Despite their being against the law in most of Europe, there is considerable evidence of mixed unions by the seventh century, usually involving free men and female slaves. The most celebrated of these unions took place in 649, when Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Bathilda. When Clovis died in 657, Bathilda ruled as regent until there eldest son came of age. Bathilda used her position to mount a campaign to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. Upon her death, the church acknowledged Bathilda as a saint.

It would seem that the theological conclusion that is discovered and rediscovered over and over again through out time is that slavery is sinful and that this concept is unique to Christianity ( although several early Jewish sects also rejected slavery.) 

Stark goes on to say that of the major world faiths, only Christianity has devoted serious and sustained attention to human rights, as opposed to human duties. Put another way, the other great faiths minimize individualism and stress collective obligations. They are, as Ruth Benedict so aptly put it, cultures of shame, rather that cultures of guilt. Keep in mind that there is not even a word for freedom in the language in which their scriptures are written--including Hebrew.


----------



## caddy

NaphtaliPress said:


> I moved from I think General Discussion because of the opening post.


 
..and I thank you for that Chris. That is obvioiusly where it belongs.


----------



## caddy

Spear Dane said:


> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did this get in the Natural Revelation forum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Natural law is deduced from Natural Revelation
> 2) Almost all natural law theories, in practice, allowed for slavery
> ------------------------------------------------
> (C) Natural revelation allows for slavery.
Click to expand...

 

Jacob, but does Natual Law & Natural Revelation make distinctions concerning racial slavery verses other types of indentured slavery that we see in Scripture?


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih

One of the problems here is our language. We seem to have one word 'slavery' which is being tossed around with a lot of meanings and emotive feelings behind it. We also have indentured servitude which if we can find a common definition most people seem to support it. It just seems when sitting back from it all a lot of people are saying similar things using different words. It is a bit like the debates these days on tv where every form of punishment and discipline gets rolled into 'child abuse'. Here we have indentured servitude and a dozen other theories and examples all rolled into the emotionally charged 'slavery'.


----------



## RamistThomist

caddy said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did this get in the Natural Revelation forum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Natural law is deduced from Natural Revelation
> 2) Almost all natural law theories, in practice, allowed for slavery
> ------------------------------------------------
> (C) Natural revelation allows for slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, but does Natual Law & Natural Revelation make distinctions concerning racial slavery verses other types of indentured slavery that we see in Scripture?
Click to expand...


slavery qua racial slavery? No, I don't think it makes those distinctions.


----------



## Pergamum

These suceeding posts all sort of fit into my list of typical responses. 

Yes, the north was evil too, yes blacks ensalved blacks. SO? Is slavery still sinful or not? 
This is precisely why I posted this "Typical Response List" because instead of just saying, "Yes, it was wrong.." the responses were.." well....they were wrong too...."

You are arguing around the point. There are other sins and other sinners, but Southern slavery was sinful. Period. The Bible did not sanction it and it does not sanction ANY slavery. Indentured servanthood is not slavery (where man is bought and sold as property by another).

Daniel Ritchie: Yes, the Colonists would have been hanged by Britian had their revolt failed. The North was VERY VERY slow in moving to invade the North. THey wee looking for excuses NOT to invade, but the Southerners began ceasing Federal arsenals.


----------



## Pergamum

Oh wow, the post changed.....


Ok, back to natural revelation (mods, should I delete my last post so that this gets back on the topic?)..


It appears that Creation always has a pecking order and a food chain. Monkeys, dogs and all pack animals establish an order. THerefore, looking at the natural world would only lead us to believe that slavery was natural and endorsed by reason. Scripture differs, but nature is very Darwinian looking, and slavery fits into this nicely. It seems that natural law would permit slavery.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> You are arguing around the point. There are other sins and other sinners, but Southern slavery was sinful. Period. The Bible did not sanction it and it does not sanction ANY slavery. Indentured servanthood is not slavery (where man is bought and sold as property by another).



Nobody is arguing that Southern Slavery is biblical. Everyone agrees it's sinful. We are just not making the logical leap from Southern Slavery is sinful to ALL slavery is sinful. You can't jump from I propositions to A propositions.

And no offense, you did kind of derail the thread by bringing up these slavers on PB with your reference to Dabney.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Pergamum, you made some claims that show example of how the North was "kind". Unfortunately you listed only a couple of positive "publicised" examples while leaving out the majority of what was done.

The North "ended" slavery. Where? Oh, everywhere IN THE SOUTH EXCEPT Yankee held New Orleans! So it was a military tactic...just like publically "promoting" abolition was merely to obtain pacifist money (of which they had and still have plenty of). The idea also was not to "end slavery"; it was to ship all black peoples (even those that had been born and raised here...even those since colonial times and were freemen) to Africa. This was not an ending of slavery...it was racism as large as enslaving only black people.

The North let Lee and others teach in Universities. But they loaded up trains of southern women and children and separated them into forced labour in the North. Someone paid the price. Lee was a public figure. They attacked those that wouldn't be noticed.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Daniel Ritchie: Yes, the Colonists would have been hanged by Britian had their revolt failed. The North was VERY VERY slow in moving to invade the South. They were looking for excuses NOT to invade, but the Southerners began seizing Federal arsenals.



Was this not an act of self-defence against a foreign power that had military bases in their territory? Even if the South was wrong to do this, the response of the North was not warranted.


----------



## caddy

Spear Dane said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> care to name some examples and proof of what you are speaking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was YOU that said "The South [Dabney] was correct to say that the Bible sanctioned salvery." on 5-16-2004, on the post "R Dabney and Slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? The bible does sanction slavery. To deny that is to deny God's word. Now, as I made clear--and you left out--the bible does not sanction racial slavery, but that does not mean that it doesn't sanction any kind of slavery at all. As history makes abundantly clear, there are many types of slavery. Slavery isn't some vague, abstract evil principle.
Click to expand...

 
Obviously it does, but my original post was to try to get at the very heart of the matter. We have this sinful institution and others that God has allowed because we are a fallen/sinful people. This is not the way things *** should be ***. It may be the _the way it is_ but it is not "natural" or ideal. My point is that it is just another result of the fall. Agree or disagree?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Actually, the North was LOOKING for a REASON to make it look like the South "started it". I believe the attempt to seize an arsenal was done by an independent group...


----------



## caddy

A quick post from my friend concerning the "morality of slavery" as well as the notion that it was once "moral" for young girls to be wed at 13 but no longer:

Caddy, in earlier posts I said that morality changes with the society (putting aside what the Bible says). I said that some things used to be considered immoral by mainstream thinking and now they aren't, and vice versa. You said that's not true, and you offered the example of murder.

So in order to prove that morality DOES change, I had to come up with one example of something that used to be moral and is not immoral, or vice-versa. And I think I did, with more than one example.

So do you agree that human moral values are not static, that they DO in fact change?


----------



## k.seymore

Ok, I have a new line of thinking since this conversation seems to be going in loops. Forget forced slavery. I want to focus on indentured servitude for a second. Is regulation of debt a part of Natural Law? Should anyone be in debt, or is being in debt wrong? If no one should be in debt, but people in life find themselves in debt, then debt is an allowance that is regulated in the law because of sin. The original creation had no sin. Therefore no type of slavery is a part of Natural Law, but was an allowance due to sin. Which would seem to be an answer for this thread's title question.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Without something as a foundation to what morality is and is not...then he is correct in that "morality" is subjective...to societies, to individuals. As a Christian, however, morality is based upon certain foundational truths and laws given by God within Scripture, thus making morality objective, rather than subjective to our whims and desires.


----------



## caddy

k.seymore said:


> Ok, I have a new line of thinking since this conversation seems to be going in loops. Forget forced slavery. I want to focus on indentured servitude for a second. Is regulation of debt a part of Natural Law? Should anyone be in debt, or is being in debt wrong? If no one should be in debt, but people in life find themselves in debt, then debt is an allowance that is regulated in the law because of sin. The original creation had no sin. Therefore no type of slavery is a part of Natural Law, but was an allowance due to sin. Which would seem to be an answer for this thread's title question.


 
This is hitting closer to home. Thanks K.

This was my reply to him with a little help from Calvin:

Man's morality is always changing. That doesn't imply that God's ideal for us changes. God's law NEVER changes. It was perfection in the O.T and we understood that from the 600+ laws God required of the Jews and the Bloody sacrifical system. If a king issued an edict forbidding murder, adultery and theft, the punishment would not fall on a man who longed to commit the crime, but had not done so. A human lawgiver is concerned with outward behavior, so his commands are defied only in actions. But God, who sees everything, and who looks for purity of heart rather than outward show, includes anger, hatred, lust and covetousness and many other things when he forbids murder, adultery and theft. Being a spiritual lawgiver, he speaks to the soul as much as the body. The murder which the soul commits is anger and hatred; the theft is envy and greed; the adultery is lust. Question to you. Have you committed these? This is the point of God's law. It hasn't changed and never will. It is much more keenly concerned with your heart than you can imagine. Certainly man's idea of what is right and wrong apart from God is ALWAYS changing. I don't deny that. I would be suprised if it were static for ANY length of time. You may say that human laws are concerned with intentions and wishes, not chance happenings. I agree, but these have to manifest themselves externally. Such laws take into account the intention with which the act was done, but do not scrutinise the secret thoughts. Knowing yourself well, would you say you have ever been angered enough to wish someone dead? I have. What does that make you? In God's eyes it makes you a murderer. The act itself is NOT required. God requires perfection of heart, mind and deed--absolute perfection. Most men, when they are concerned to hide their flouting of the Law, merely bring their bodily action into line. Meanwhile their hearts are completely cut off from obedience.


----------



## Pergamum

ok, sorry to derail the thread again. But I DID try to get it on track but it "went South" again.


Here is my ON-track response again to slvaery and natural law:


It appears that Creation always has a pecking order and a food chain. Monkeys, dogs and all pack animals establish an order. THerefore, looking at the natural world would only lead us to believe that slavery was natural and endorsed by reason. Scripture differs, but nature is very Darwinian looking, and slavery fits into this nicely. It seems that natural law would permit slavery.

But I do not put much stock in natural law.


----------



## VictorBravo

Pergamum said:


> ok, sorry to derail the thread again. But I DID try to get it on track but it "went South" again.
> 
> 
> Here is my ON-track response again to slvaery and natural law:
> 
> 
> It appears that Creation always has a pecking order and a food chain. Monkeys, dogs and all pack animals establish an order. THerefore, looking at the natural world would only lead us to believe that slavery was natural and endorsed by reason. Scripture differs, but nature is very Darwinian looking, and slavery fits into this nicely. It seems that natural law would permit slavery.
> 
> 
> But I do not put much stock in natural law.



That's a whole 'nother can of worms. I could argue that natural law is contrary to Darwin, that man is obviously different from the animals and of equal worth because of that difference, and that we cannot look to what animals do to determine our ethics. (Arguing along the lines of Ayn Rand, of all people).

But to be sure, I don't put a lot of stock into natural law either, but I use the term differently, apparently, than many theologians. In other words, I distinguish between "Law of Nature" (God's revealed law) and "natural law" (discerned by man's reason).


----------



## Pergamum

VIc: Good point. But Ann also was atheist and makes a REALLY good case for it.

Yes, I agree with your final assessment - I don't put stock into natural law (rational arguments without God's Revealtion aiding them) arguments either.


----------



## Wannabee

Obviously my plea in my first post was disregarded.


> Man's dignity as God's image bearer should never be misplaced, regardless of ethnicity, creed or inherent factors. And please, don't turn my statements into some endorsement of slavery (I've experienced this irresponsible overreaction before). I simply made biblical and historical observations.


----------



## k.seymore

Pergamum said:


> It appears that Creation always has a pecking order and a food chain. Monkeys, dogs and all pack animals establish an order. THerefore, looking at the natural world would only lead us to believe that slavery was natural and endorsed by reason. Scripture differs, but nature is very Darwinian looking, and slavery fits into this nicely. It seems that natural law would permit slavery.
> 
> But I do not put much stock in natural law.



I think Caddy meant "Natural Law" in the opening question of this thread to mean the original manifestation of the Moral Law in creation as many Divines used that terminology. It is confusing terminology since we also call the order we see in nature "the laws of nature."


----------



## Pergamum

Can you define Natural Law again? 

"...The original manifestation of the moral law in Creation?"

What's that? 

Only Adam knew that, and we cannot remember this. As we look around we only see a fallen world.

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with this technical term. If it does not come from revelation than it must come from reason or seeing how nature works and nature is bloody in tooth and claw.


----------



## RamistThomist

Essentially he means something like "Ten Commandments written on the heart." Usually advocates appeal to Romans 2.15 and think that is the same thing as the ten commandments.


----------



## Pergamum

OH, thanks. Anything written on the heart post-fall really is not much use, is it? It can guide fallibly somewaht, but I wouldn't trust it much.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> OH, thanks. Anything written on the heart post-fall really is not much use, is it? It can guide fallibly somewaht, but I wouldn't trust it much.



I would tend to agree with you, somewhat. I denied natural law at one point and this Reformed theologian in California kept calling me a Barthian. I hve no theological problem with saying the ten commandments are written on the heart. I think it undercuts teh purpose of natural law, though. It explicitly begs the question in favor of Christianity, which the natural law theorist doesn't believe we should do.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Spear Dane said:


> And also black people were enslaved by *Africans.* The slaves didn't just magically appear on the slave ships. The Africans (and some profiteering Europeans) were the kidnappers.



And that gets white slave owners off the hook???

I know that's not your point, but just because the African tribes that sold the slaves were sinning doesn't mean that the white slave owners weren't culpable for slavery.


----------



## caddy

*From J.Budziszewski*

_The Foundational moral principles are not only right for all, but at some level known to all._​_*O*_nce upon a time it was possible for a philosopher to write that the foundational moral principles are "the same for all, both as rectitude and as to knowledge"--and expect everyone to agree. To say that these principles are the same for all "as to rectitude" means that they are right for everyone; in other words, deliberately taking innocent human life, sleeping with my neighbor's wife, and mocking God are as wrong for me as they are for you, no matter what either of us believe. To say that there are the same for all "as to knowledge" means that at some level, everyone knows them; even the murderer knows the wrong of murder, the adulterer the wrong of adultery, the mocker the wrong of mockery. He may say that he doesn't, but he does. There are no real moral skeptics; supposed skeptics are plaing make-believe, and doing it badly.

As I say, once upon a time a thinker who wrote such words could expect nearly everyone to agree. And nearly everyone did. The Christian agreed, the Jews agreed, and the Muslims agreed. Moreover, they could call to their support the consensus of the rest of the human race. One might search the wide world over for a people who did not know the moral basics, but one would fail.

To be sure, the wide world over people also carved out excuses for themselves. I must not take innocent human life--but only my tribe is human. I must not sleep with my neighbor's wife--but I can make my neighbor's mine. I must not mock deity--but I can ascribe deity to a created thing instead of The Creator. And so, not only was moral knowledge universal, but the determination to play tricks on moral knowledge was universal, too. A law was written on the heart of man, but it was everywhere entangled with the evasions and subterfuges of men. Even so that law endured; and even so it was seen to endure.

This is the Natural Law, I am talking about.​


----------



## non dignus

That natural law is the grounds for slavery is bunk. 
I know that I do not want to be enslaved, and therefore I know it is wrong to enslave others.

Slavery was invented by liberals, commonly called "progressives" today. The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "_We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them_."

Don't blame that on natural law, Please!


----------



## caddy

Wannabee said:


> Obviously my plea in my first post was disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> Man's dignity as God's image bearer should never be misplaced, regardless of ethnicity, creed or inherent factors. And please, don't turn my statements into some endorsement of slavery (I've experienced this irresponsible overreaction before). I simply made biblical and historical observations.
Click to expand...

 
I didn't disregard it or ignore it. I appreciate the statement!


----------



## caddy

non dignus said:


> That natural law is the grounds for slavery is bunk.
> I know that I do not want to be enslaved, and therefore I know it is wrong to enslave others.
> 
> Slavery was invented by liberals, commonly called "progressives" today. The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "_We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them_."
> 
> Don't blame that on natural law, Please!


 
I agree wholeheartedly! It just seems to be one of those things that "We Can't Not Know" -- to steal Budziszewski's phrase. We can supress it. We can accept it as normal after a period of time in which we know of nothing else but our own enslavement ( which has spiritual implications as well), but given the choice and taste of one verses the other, it would seem we would always choose Freedom.


----------



## RamistThomist

Calvibaptist said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> And also black people were enslaved by *Africans.* The slaves didn't just magically appear on the slave ships. The Africans (and some profiteering Europeans) were the kidnappers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that gets white slave owners off the hook???
> 
> I know that's not your point, but just because the African tribes that sold the slaves were sinning doesn't mean that the white slave owners weren't culpable for slavery.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't get them off the hook. But it is equally hypocritical to blame white Southerners when there are other people involved who don't get blamed at all.


----------



## k.seymore

Pergamum said:


> Can you define Natural Law again?
> 
> "...The original manifestation of the moral law in Creation?"
> 
> What's that?
> 
> Only Adam knew that, and we cannot remember this. As we look around we only see a fallen world.
> 
> Sorry, I am unfamiliar with this technical term. If it does not come from revelation than it must come from reason or seeing how nature works and nature is bloody in tooth and claw.



Sorry if I was unclear. I was using the time reference to contrast the moral law that we know naturally from the moral law as it is explained in scripture later, say the 10 commandments. I didn't mean to imply that it was only something around pre-fall, I believe all know this naturally moral law. It is, as I simplify for my children, "love God and love others." Or to explain it another way, it is simply saying that deep down humans know the difference between morality and immorality. In past days puritans and others called this the Natural Law.

If you believe all humans are accountable for their actions toward God, whether they've read the Bible or not, then you believe in what they called Natural Law.


----------



## Calvibaptist

non dignus said:


> The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "_We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them_."



 Was she related to Gal Ore and Ked Tennedy?


----------



## Calvibaptist

Spear Dane said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> And also black people were enslaved by *Africans.* The slaves didn't just magically appear on the slave ships. The Africans (and some profiteering Europeans) were the kidnappers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that gets white slave owners off the hook???
> 
> I know that's not your point, but just because the African tribes that sold the slaves were sinning doesn't mean that the white slave owners weren't culpable for slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't get them off the hook. But it is equally hypocritical to blame white Southerners when there are other people involved who don't get blamed at all.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's hypocritical to blame white slave owners (be they Southerners or Northerners who also owned slaves). It might be hypocritical to blame *ONLY* white slave owners, but they do deserve a lot of blame.


----------



## non dignus

Calvibaptist said:


> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "_We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was she related to Gal Ore and Ked Tennedy?
Click to expand...


Ked Tennedy! 


He's probably introduced himself that way many a time, especially later in the evening.....


----------



## govols

non dignus said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "_We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was she related to Gal Ore and Ked Tennedy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ked Tennedy!
> 
> 
> He's probably introduced himself that way many a time, especially later in the evening.....
Click to expand...


What seems to be occifer problem?


----------



## RamistThomist

non dignus said:


> That natural law is the grounds for slavery is bunk.
> I know that I do not want to be enslaved, and therefore I know it is wrong to enslave others.
> !



<Playing Devil's Advocate>

How do you know you are using your reason correctly? Me personally, I think that slavery is obvious from looking at the created order. I claim natural law on my side. What makes your counter-claim better?

Perhaps you feel it is wrong to enslave others, but I can use the same structure of the argument for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, I might want to be enslaved; therefore, it is right to enslave others. Perhaps I am a masochist or something. Why doesn't that follow?

End playing advocate


----------

