The morality of Slavery in History and Natural Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well said Joshua!
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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... :um:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.


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


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

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

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.

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? :um:
 
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top