Original Sin?

Quote: Nareed

Quote: FrGamble

Even before 1492 the Church began condemning the practice of racial slavery and the slave trade. There are numerous Papal Bulls or pronouncements about this issue but three in particular to recall are Sicut Dudum by Eugene IV in 1435, Sublimis Deus by Paul III in 1537. and In Supremo by Gregory XVI in 1839. There were also decrees of excommunication in these documents and others for anyone participating in the slave trade.

Wow! Two (2) T-W-O whole documents in 500 years!

Are you sure they did not overdo it?

So how many people were excommunicated for reasons relating to slavery in those 500 years? Any at all? The slave trade was alive and causing misery as late as the mid-XIX Century, with the bulk of victims being delivered to Catholic possessions. How many Catholics did the church excommunicate. Come, given TWO papal documents issued during 500 years, I'd expect at least a few documented cases.

By 1839 the abolitionist movement, in several countries, was a growing, if small, phenomenon. By then the church seems to be doing an early jump into the bandwagon.

I should stop peeking. You should pray to Jehovah that I stop peeking. I will only give you more metaphorical rope to hang yourself with.

The Bible, by the New Testament, does not condone slavery.

The Old Testament talks at length about how to treat slaves -- humanely, as if they are a member of your family:
In the NT, Paul urges a slave keeper to do the right thing and let his slave go.

Slavery was not seen as wrong back then as it was seen as more of a paid servant role, more like full time employment with room and board.

The Israelites were to treat their enslaved fellow Hebrews as if they were servants. (Lev 25 v39-40).
They were also to give them the option of their freedom in the 7th year of their service (Ex 21 v2),
and give them the means to make a new start (Deut 15 v12-18), although they could remain a slave if they chose.
Anyone who stole a man and put him to slavery (Ex 21 v16) was to be put to death. There were various laws dealing with physical abuse of slaves (Ex 21 v20 & 26), and slaves who ran away from their masters were to be welcomed and not returned. (Deut 23.15).

If an Israelite fell upon hard times they could offer to work for someone else who would in turn look after them (Lev 25 v39).

In the new testament: Paul was not opposed to the freedom of slaves if the opportunity arose (1 Cor 7 v21) but believed that God had called people to different stations in life and they were to live out the Christian life in the situation in which they were called (1 Cor 7). For slaves to disobey their masters would have aused God’s name to be reviled (1 Tim 6 v1). Slaves were to please God by their service (Eph 6 v5-8 Col 3 v22) and the brotherly love with a believing master should be another reason for serving him well (1 Tim 6 v2). Masters were to treat their slaves well because they both had the same master in heaven with whom there is no partiality (Col 4 v1).

However, in a list of the lawless and disobedient (1Tim 1v10), the New Testament condemns those who take people captive to sell them into slavery, which is consistent with Old Testament Law.

Inotherwords the Bible was not against slavery as it was seen as an economic need, I am guessing. But slaves and masters were to treat each other well, which is much different than the slave trade in the 17th - 19th centuries. One could argue that Christianity caused the early Roman Empire to change its laws regarding slavery, giving slaves more rights.

Quote: boymimbo

The Bible, by the New Testament, does not condone slavery.

No doubt that will come as a relief to the millions of slaves who died after short, miserable lives as the property of people who allegedly followed the Bible.

Quote:

In the new testament: Paul was not opposed to the freedom of slaves if the opportunity arose (1 Cor 7 v21) but believed that God had called people to different stations in life and they were to live out the Christian life in the situation in which they were called (1 Cor 7). For slaves to disobey their masters would have aused God’s name to be reviled (1 Tim 6 v1). Slaves were to please God by their service (Eph 6 v5-8 Col 3 v22) and the brotherly love with a believing master should be another reason for serving him well (1 Tim 6 v2). Masters were to treat their slaves well because they both had the same master in heaven with whom there is no partiality (Col 4 v1).

If you believe that doesn't condone slavery, there's this bridge I've been meaning to sell.

Look, you can't have it both ways.

The Bible states to treat your slaves well. Most pro-God folks will point to a letter from Paul that tells his friend to 'do the right thing' and free his slave.

But you are right the Bible does not have an ethical problem overall with slaves.

Quote: boymimbo

But you are right the Bible does not have an ethical problem overall with slaves.

And that's just one reason I have a ton of ethical problems with the Bible.

When a book is promoted as the ultimate, absolute word on morality, it should get things right. If it doesn't object to one of the great moral wrongs of all time, but threatens fire and brimstone for harmless things like independence of thought, same-sex love, and divorce, it cannot be taken seriously as a moral guide, much less as the last word on morality.

How a slave is treated in no way mitigates the evil of slavery. Every human being has a great deal of potential. A slave has that potential cut off, directed to serve someone else's purpose. Someone with the potential for a great career in science, or politics, or the arts, or literature, or of modest accomplishment running a small business, or even of something more limited like skilled work, won't be able to realize any of that if they are to spend their lives in the fields working for a master, no matter how well they're treated.

It's the same problem you get when you limit the access of certain groups of people to certain fields, or even certain geographical areas. Another bone to pick with the Bible, as well as those who claim to follow it.

Quote: boymimbo

But you are right the Bible does not have an ethical problem overall with slaves.

Boymimbo, your earlier post was excellent but this I think one is a mistake. The Bible has a serious problem with slavery as your earlier post showed. Slavery is too big a word that you leave yourself and the Scriptures open to people using this statement to say the Bible does not have a problem with the modern conception of racial or chattel slavery. The Bible is always and everywhere against this type of slavery where people are reduced to property or less than human. One of the fundamental teachings of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. A more accurate statement would be:

The Bible does not have an ethical problem with servitude as punishment or to repay a debt as long as everyone is treated with the respect they deserve as children of God.

It wasn't just payment of debt, it was also punishment for sin, and for crimes, and wasn't just limited to the sinners or lawbreakers, but extended to their children:

words from Wikipedia, from St. Thomas Aquinas

Quote:

Aquinas defended slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law. He held that slavery could be consistent with natural law if it is imposed by positive law as punishment for crimes, and if such slavery did not violate the slave's rights to food, sleep, marriage (or celibacy), raising of their children, and religious worship (and anything else that pertains to natural law). Aquinas asserted that the children of a slave mother were rightly enslaved even though they themselves had not committed personal sin. He further argued that anyone who persuades a slave to escape is guilty of theft, because, while the slave is not himself property (a person cannot be property), his master has a right to the labor of that slave.

Also, it was common practice to enslave entire populations of captured cities.

Eventually, the church's position shifted to say it was no longer ok to enslave christians for these reasons, and then finally in the 1800s to say it was no longer ok to enslave anyone, or at least buy and sell slaves, after laws in many countries abolishing slavery had already been passed.

Oh my, I think I have already shown you documents where the Church forbid the slave trade and boymimbo showed you where that practice is outlawed in the New Testament itself. I also think it has been clearly demonstrated that at no time did Christianity support the practice of racial; or as the article you linked to described as "chattel slavery". With this being a given I think I will continue to try to dance around your uncomfortable question as to why the Church allowed the imposition of servitude upon enemies captured in war. I think it has something to do with the times, but it is hard for us to see that or accept that as an excuse today.

The St Thomas Aquinas quote wasn't about racial or chattel slavery, it was about the sort of cultural slavery that was common for the time.

It is on the wikipedia page that I linked to before, regarding the catholic church and slavery. Did you read the page? I asked you if you disputed any of the statements on the page as inaccurate or not factual.

so, if we are arriving at the agreement that slavery could be imposed to settle a debt, or settle a crime (including the crime of not being a christian), why the change in church policy starting in the 1800s?

If the practice is outlawed by the New Testament, why aren't there any "free all of your slaves" statements made by Paul ("you should free this one slave"), any of the other apostles, Jesus, or any of the popes for centuries or longer?

these weren't all times of war.

why did the church allow the imposition of slavery on the children of slaves?

If the church forbid the slave trade, why did Pope Innocent VIII accept 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon in 1488 and distribute them to his cardinals and roman nobility? that wasn't a time of war, was it? and it isn't just the actions of the pope - they were accepted by him and by his cardinals and by the presumably catholic roman nobility.

I think there is a lot more for you to be uncomfortable with than the imposition of involuntary servitude to those captured in war.

Quote: Dalex64

why did the church allow the imposition of slavery on the children of slaves?

You ask this of the religion that invented original sin?

I am reading the Wikipedia page and I will let you know what I object to as inaccurate or not factual, but it will take some time. For now we can assume what it says is correct.

I wonder if the policy of a type of slavery in order to pay a debt or settle a crime has changed. We still would all allow this I think. The nature of some of the "crimes" has changed mostly due to the fact of the separation of Church and state. It is no longer treason to be a heretic.

There is a very important "free all of your slaves" statement that forms a fundamental story of the Bible. God commands Moses to say, "Let my people go!" Translation: "Free all of your slaves!" This type of slavery is the type of racial or chattel slavery the Bible and Christianity is always against. The fact that Jesus, a good Jew, and Paul and the other Apostles, all also Jews do not also say, "free all of your slaves" is a clear indication that the type of slavery they are addressing is of a different type.

Pope Innocent VIII and his crony cardinals are some of our worst Churchmen and Pope. Bringing him up does nothing to advance your argument if you are trying to tie his actions to the official teaching of the Church.