Jump to content

Talk:Christian views on slavery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Col8lok8 (talk | contribs) at 04:41, 14 February 2016 (Signed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cleanup

This article needs a lot of work. I'm hoping to find some time over the next few days to go through it. Initially, it would be helpful to source, rephrase or remove all passages which editorialize the subject, or violate WP:SYNTH; It appears that would constitute most of the article. Once we have it whittled down in that way, the article will be in much better shape, and building up sourced, factual content will be easier. Anyone who would like to help with this, please wade in. Thanks. Jesstalk|edits 04:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

This article was recently renamed from "Christianity and slavery" to "Christian views on slavery." I know we are asked to be bold here but a page move may have significant impacts and are not as easily reverted as regular edits. It seems prudent to get some sense of what other editors think about it before diving in.

In my view the new title may not be the best we could have come up with since the topic is not just about views but also actions. The new title makes it sound like we're describing an objective debate rather than the very physical, oppressive, and liberating role of Christianity. Jojalozzo 02:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a more better title be "Christian views of slavery"? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not veiw but history

I found that some of the religions are not the religions view but only the history on what they did against it in America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.185.166 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you put the title as 'slavery in the bible'. Because that's exactly what it is. If you read the scriptures, God doesn't promote slavery at all. An example why he would he have comissioned Moses to free the Israelites from the slavery under Egyptian rule which is in the book of exodus. -Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.227.26 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, God does not promote the enslavement of Israelite. However, He does condones the enslavement of other nations such as the Canaanites and other tribes whom Joshua massacred when he conquered Jerusalem. Just try to read the Old Testament. This article is very biased. It seems like it was written by a group of Christian apologists who tried to whitewash or remove any connection that implied the Bible condones slavery. The Bible does condones slavery, especially of conquered nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.8.38 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though the laws of slavery are condoned in the Bible, there is also a commandment to free slaves of all ethnicity at a certain time (if I can recall correctly). If anything this page is far too harsh on Christianity- Medieval Europe was remarkably slave free, as seen on this websites own 'Slavery in Medieval Europe'. The fact that this page and that clash so remarkably needs to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.230.115 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? The Bible give slaves false hope that a Hebrew slave may be freed after 7 years of servitude. But there's an exclusion clause to it; the master can hold the slave's wife and children as ransom in such ways that the slave would have no choice but to serve his master FOREVER. Why are you Christians so afraid to reveal this fact? In fact no biblical passage ever appeared in this article; this is in contrast the with the article of "Muhammad's view of slavery", where the article was so biased in a way that obviously shows that the writer intends to portray Muhammad as somekind of a malovelant slave trader. This is bullshit. Why is it that this article are allowed a clean pass without citing any biblical passages which condones and even encourage slavery? 210.195.14.111 (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views on slavery → Christian involvement with slavery — "Views" mainly suggests just verbal expression but the article covers actions as well. "Involvement" includes both words and actions. Jojalozzo 04:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. "Involvement" with slavery implies an assumed position of active participation, in cooperation, support or promotion. Christian "views" seems more appropriate (maybe not "views on slavery", but "views of slavery", as suggested earlier). This article still seems to me to be primarily about views. Walrasiad (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of "involvement" as being a neutral term for opposition to as well as support of slavery. "Views" is a passive term that suggests an observer role but Christianity has been active both in supporting and in opposing slavery. Can you suggest a term that implies a active role? Jojalozzo 03:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "active". Slavery was a matter of civil law, not religious practice. Christianity was an observer. The "activity" of Christian groups and institutions, was largely articulating, promoting and disseminating their view of slavery. Even if these views might eventually influence civil legislation, their contribution was still their "views". Walrasiad (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Involvement is less neutral that is for sure. And I think this article must MIRROR other articles eg Islam and Judaism. In terms of cross wiki balance. Personally I think Christianity and Slavery would fix the problem because it then would allow a broad discussion. There is no denying the role of Christianity in enslavement but at the same time that is not the only role, and in terms of Worldview it is not all christianity (see Ethiopia for example), same is true for Islam. Involvement squashes that dynamic reality and already offers us a conclusion which is a casual relationship between religion and enslavement. (this is a problem b/c it is not the case)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose -- The article is primarily about views or attitudes, not involvement, which refers to attitudes. However, I could accept "Christianity and slavery". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Christianity and slavery is better than the current title since it allows for more than a Christian role as simple observer. However, that title choice was changed in 4/2010 because it was "an ambiguous title that could mean, for example, the use of Christians as slaves." Would it make sense to include a section on the enslavement of Christians? Jojalozzo 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Jojalozzo 23:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History of institutional slavery section recommendation.

The third paragraph seems to be referenced excessively by Rodney Stark's, The Victory of Reason, but this book centers around Europe. So while the first paragraph and first sentence especially, "Slavery and Middle Ages serfdom were not synonymous, nor was serfdom the evolution of slavery.", may or may not be accurate for Europe it is not expressed exclusively as such. If instead a broader claim is being made that serfdom has never evolved from slavery then the Russian Emancipation of 1679 and 1723 with the change over time of all slaves to serfs would seem to stand in contradiction. Rewrite recommended.Warterra (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery versus Servitude?

I don't believe this article distinguishes at all between "slavery" and "servitude", using the term "slavery" in all cases. This can be very misleading. While "slavery" means privation of freedom and of personal dignity, "servitude" on the other hand doesn't quite have that meaning. "Servitude" is not a complete privation of personal freedom, it is tending more towards a work relationship between "servant" and "master". The "master" is the employer, and the "servant" is the employed. While a "slave" is deprived of all rights, a "servant" on the other hand may be limited but is not deprived of all rights. It is an important distinction even when interpreting texts, biblical or non. There are different terms used in the different languages that can convey "slavery" or can convey "servitude". For example, in latin the term "famulus" is similar to "servus" but very different from the term "mancipium" or from the term "sclavus". "Famulus" refers to one who "works for the family" and also has a connotation of one who is "a member of the family". Clearly very different from other terms that refer to enslavement. Similary in greek, "δούλος" and "σκλάβος" are quite different from "υπηρέτης" or from the verb "σερβίρω". "To be subject to" is not the same as "to wait upon". And so in every language. It is very important to understand what kind or what level of slavery or servitude is being referenced in the texts that are quoted as to avoid misinterpretation. --Lwangaman (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone in servitude decide to leave their master? If so, I'd agree with you. If not, it's just semantics and makes no substantive difference... 86.130.176.150 (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

removing key statements from lead

In this diff Col8lok8 removes "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of slavery.<ref>[http://medicolegal.tripod.com History of Abolitionism]</ref>" (while also adding cites). @Jess: you claim I misread his diff but did not detil where this statement would still be. tahc chat 17:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see. That's probably because tripod.com isn't a reliable source. Can we find a proper source for that claim (I'm sure there is one) and then reintroduce it where it was before? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that I removed the statement because it had been there a long time without a reliable source.Col8lok8 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't remove things just because you don't like them, and someone now finds it to lack a reliable source. You ask for such a source, and then wait.
You also don't insert orginal reaserch while waiting, in an effert to give words the meanings you prefer. tahc chat 19:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tahc, for providing a few sources! I appreciate it! Unfortunately, those sources don't quite verify what we're saying. For example, this source verifies that Pope Francis condemned human trafficking (and we could extrapolate that Catholicism condemns human trafficking), but it says nothing of "all Christians" or "near unanimity", and unfortunately it is the very best of the group of 4 sources. It sounds like the "JOINT DECLARATION OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AGAINST SLAVERY" might be a good lead for something more direct. I don't doubt the claim, which is why I've left it in, but we need a source for it. An ideal source would discuss the subject dispassionately and internationally, and include the parts of the world where Christian groups still employ slavery, which would allow us to convey exactly where it's "nearly unanimous" and where it still occurs. I don't know of such a source, unfortunately.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot take a quote about employment and apply it to the slavery

Dear Tahc, You left the following message at my user_talk page. Your attem(p)ts to justify slavery is in the name of "Christians think of themselves as slaves of Christ" is inappropriate Christian views on slavery and total[l]y inappropriate for Christian ethics. I would like to have the whole section removed-- but even it you want to cram in such a total[l]y inappropriate justif(i)cation for slavery -- you would have to gain WP:CON first, which you don't have, per WP:BRD, and have not even tried to get. By the way, any slavery to God is not real what one means by slavery -- because God is out (incorrect spelling of our) maker and author."

I never included slavery to God in the actual Wikipedia article or in my justification for changing the article. I did point out that Christian usage of the word slavery includes slavery to Christ, and so not all forms of slavery are unfair and unjust. That was only for the 'edit summary', not for the article itself. My additions have not supported unfair and unjust forms of slavery. They explicitly opposed it by opposed any slavery that does not fit with Christian ethics (for example as outlined by Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Apostle). Please stop launching spurious accusations at me re adding 'justification for slavery'. Such an accusation is without merit. Nevertheless, you are wrong when you say slavery to God is not really what one means by slavery. The Islamic name/term 'Abdullah' means means 'slave of God', and likewise for Christian ethics, see: Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13. For slavery to Christ see Romans 1:1 1 Corinthians 7:22, and Philippians 1:1. In future, please do not make large changes to articles which involve a subject you do not know much about. There is no need to remove the whole section as the quote from Augustine and other parts of the removed section are useful. Col8lok8 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In modern times, Christians reject the permissibility of any slavery with near unanimity.
Your edits to remove and/or weaken this statement (Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of slavery) imply that Christians (by and large) accept certain fair and just forms of slavery. But this is not true-- it is just your orginal research. Wikipedia is not a place for your WP:orginal research. tahc chat 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just my original research. Did you read the quotes by McQuilkin&Copan, Capes,Reeves&Richards, and Marshall? By fair and just forms of slavery, people writing on Christian ethics and Biblical justice would suggest only including slavery that meets the standards of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Apostle. Such slavery, if slavery is to be practiced in the 21st century, must be in the form of paid employment that passes and exceeds the normal expectations of employer-employee relationships in the 21st century (safe work environment, absence of various forms of harassment, fair and just wages, flexibility of working hours, etc) as, for example, it would be unfair to give someone pay that was given in the 18th century. In the 21st century, not paying for work performed would be even more unjust (unless done voluntarily with 21st century expectations that come with volunteer work).

McQuilkin & Copan (2014, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom, InterVarsity Press: IL, p. 448-49): "[T]he principles enunciated for slave-owner relationships are so humanitarian in their protection of the oppressed that they are easily transferable to labor-management relationships in the ... era in which we live, an era brought about through the influence of New Testament teaching. For example, in his letters to the churches at Ephesus (Eph 6:5-9) and Colossae (Col 3:22-4:1), Paul gives principles for both the employer and the employee ... Employees are to work "from the heart," humble in attitude, fearful before God of wronging their employer. Employers are to be humbly fearful of wronging their employees. Furthermore, both are to relate honestly with one another, without hypocrisy ... The atmosphere and attitude at work is to be cordial and even cheerful ... Paul says that this means the worker will work diligently and faithfully. And he says of the owner, "in like manner" ... Managers must not threaten. They have power over the welfare and livelihood of their employees ... employers must not use their power to coerce ... Furthermore, all working arrangements, including pay, must be just. Unsafe working conditions ... are certainly unjust." Col8lok8 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Christians reject employer-employee relationships, such as employer-employee relationships in Christian organisations? The teachings regarding slavery given by Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Apostle arguably (see above) exceed the present reality of 21st century employer-employee relationships.Col8lok8 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While you and I agree that the New Testament teaches principles that are applicable to both slave-owner relationships and to employer-employee relationships, that does not mean that the English word(s) for employment and the English word for slavery are either equal or synonymous. Since they are not synonymous (in English at least, the langage of this wiki) you cannot take a quote about one and apply it to the other. That would be WP:orginal research, or worse. tahc chat 19:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since Col8lok8 is still editing here on Christian views on slavery but limited his disscusion from other, it seems best if I include this here for others to join in. tahc chat 19:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are about slavery and employment and where they are synonymous, in other words when slavery and employment meet. Circumstances where slavery and employment are synonymous are in slave-master relationships where the teachings of Paul, Jesus and the apostles are 'followed' and 'only employer-employee relationship finally remains' (Picirilli et al eds 1990, The Randall House Bible Commentary: 1 Thessalonians Through Philemon, Randall House Publications, TN, p. 387). Relationship that are at the same time *nominally* 'master-slave' but *functionally* 'employer-employee'. One could use both to describe such relationships and one would be referring to the name and function respectively of the same relationship. I have strived for accuracy and to provide reliable sources. I removed a statement because the source was not reliable, and then replaced it with a statement for which there are reliable sources.
In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery which are neither capable of meeting nor surpassing the relationships between employers and their employees in modern times.
Picirilli, Robert E.; Outlaw, W. Stanley; Ellis, Daryl, eds. (1990). The Randall House Bible Commentary: 1 Thessalonians Through Philemon. TN: Randall House Publications. p. 387. ISBN 0892651431. "Paul ... Jesus ... the apostles ... dealt with it [slavery] in the most effective way possible, at the time, by instructing both slaves and masters in the proper conduct and relationships toward one another. Where these instructions were followed, the harshness of the master-slave relation was eliminated and only the employer-employee relationship finally remained. Because of this, most of what is said to masters and slaves in the N.T. can and should be applied to employer-employee relationships in our own time."
Picirilli is not only stating that there are principles that could be applied (that is the last sentence only). He is saying that there can exist a type of master-slave relation which is functionally an employer-employee relationship and no immoral/sinful/unethical elements of master-slave relationships remain for that relationship. Such a relationship would be an example of *slavery* which *is synonymous* (and possibly even more favourable to) *with what is referred to as employment*.Col8lok8 (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the important issues of Wikipedia policy. I am repeating them because you are not addressing them.
It does not really matter if you or I think "employment" synonymous with "slavery", unrelated to "slavery", or the opposite of "slavery". All that really matters is what the published sources say.
If if you have one source that says "employment and just slavery are the same" (and you don't have this!) and another source that says "Christianity agrees employment is good" you cannot put these two sources together to cite the idea/statement that "Christianity agrees just slavery is good". Putting the two together is a form of original research called synthesis of published material. That is what you are tring to do. tahc chat 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impling your own original research

I am not even proposing that we add 'Christianity acceepts just slavery as good'. Ever heard of Straw man, a common informal fallacy used in discussions? The statement 'In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery' absolutely takes NO stand on whether or not there is such a thing as just slavery that Christians accept. You can hold 'all slavery is unjust and wrong' AND 'all unjust slavery is wrong' at the same time. It is neutral on the question of the existence of just slavery. If you think all harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery is a description ALL slavery, then that's *fine*. If you think harsh, unfair and unjust slavery only represents the bad apples of a box containing good apples and bad apples, then that's *also fine*.
The idea that 'modern Christians reject any slavery' assumes all slavery is bad (see below).
A. 'Modern Christians accept that just slavery is good' is different from
B. 'Modern Christians reject unjust slavery (which may be all, most, or just some slavery) as bad' basic form of the statement I would like on the page is different from
C. 'Modern Christians reject any slavery as bad' basic form of the statement that you would like on the page
B and C share a common assumption: that all slavery which is considered to be unjust is rejected as bad by modern Christians. C unnecessarily adds 'there can be no such thing as good or just slavery'. (Col8lok8 (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Unjust slavery is unjust" is a tautology, like saying "unjust marrages are unjust" or "unjust killings are unjust". It is logically irrefutable, but does not contribute any real information either.
"Unjust slavery is bad" is also a tautology, since "unjust" merely one form (or subset) of bad. (Likewise, "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery" is a also a tautology.)
Now, if we say "Christians agree unjust slavery as bad" is (theoretically) an irrefutable truth, but it is really a silly thing to say (in an encyclopedia, and most other places) unless Christians also agree some slavery is not bad; to say "Christians agree unjust slavery as bad" implies that "Christians agree some slavery is not bad". (Likewise, "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery" also implies that "In modern times almost all Christians accept the permissibility of unharsh, fair, and just slavery". This is just as "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of capital punishment" implies that "In modern times almost all Christians accept the permissibility of fair and just capital punishment".)
Impling that your own ideas or your own original research is true is not the way to write an encyclopedia article, and is against Wikipedia policy. tahc chat 17:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No stand is taken on whether unharsh, fair and just slavery actually exists. Maybe there is. Maybe there is not. You are reading into the statement something which isn't actually there.
You stated "This is just as "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of capital punishment" implies that "In modern times almost all Christians accept the permissibility of fair and just capital punishment".
Wrong. The former does not imply the latter especially if you already accept all capital punishment is unfair and unjust. In that case, it just becomes a tautologous. But the statement is not asking you to make the assumption that leads the tautologous reading of the statement. Don't read into the statement your own point of view and you will see the statement as offering a number of possibilities: ALL capital punishment is unfair and unjust, ALMOST ALL capital punishment is unfair and unjust, MOST capital punishment is unfair and unjust, and SOME capital punishment is unfair and unjust. Also the statement used in the example is not true. A significant number of Christians accept the permissibility of capital punishment as fair and just in some circumstances.
I repeat: the statement 'In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of slavery' gives the reader the choice of whether to take 'unfair and unjust forms of slavery' as being ALL slavery, ALMOST ALL slavery, MOST slavery, or SOME slavery. The statement does not force the reader to pick any option. It does not imply one particular choice. If picking the first option, the statement is true but tautologous (like all married men are married). If picking the second or third option, yes fair and just slavery does exist but it is in the minority. If picking the fourth option (which almost no one will pick), most slavery is fair and just and slavery that is unfair and unjust would be in the minority. There is significantly more freedom in the statement I offered than in your 'almost all modern Christians reject any slavery'.
In philosophical ethics, Christian or otherwise, you have to be cautious for the possibility of exceptions to every statement you put forward for consideration, especially if it is a generalisation, as generalisations often have exceptions. 'Any slavery' is definitely in the form of a generalisation (just like a statement starting with the unqualified words 'any Jew' would be a generalisation of all Jews). That is what you learn when you study academic philosophy like I have. My carefully crafted statement allows the possibility (but does not assume or imply the actuality) of exceptions to slavery as harsh, unfair and unjust. Using possible worlds language of academic philosophy, even to say that fair and just slavery may exist in some possible world is not to say that fair and just slavery exists in the actual world. Something can exist in some possible world without existing in the actual world.
The statement 'in modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of slavery' is a statement so neutral in its carefully constructed wording that no particular one of these statements have to be assumed as true for a person to accept the statement. You can hold A, B, C, and/or D and accept the statement:
A. Fair and just slavery exists in every possible world.
B. Fair and just slavery exists in the actual world.
C. Fair and just slavery exists in at least one possible world.
D. Fair and just slavery exists in no possible world.
I personally hold to position C but I have great sympathy for position D given the abundant examples of unfair and unjust historic and modern day slavery. The possible world(s) that fair and just slavery exists in for position C may or may not be (or include) the actual world but the actual world is regarded as a possible world by philosophers.Col8lok8 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another quote from Chris Marshall (2005, The little book of biblical justice, Good Books: TN, p. 46) who is discussing slavery as a punishment for those who committed crimes: "it could be argued that Hebrew slavery was a more humane institution than its modern equivalent of imprisonment". Note: many people, including Christians, do indeed accept that time inside a modern prison is fair and just at least for those people who are considered to deserve prison time as a punishment, or for whom it is considered they are a safety and security threat that the community/country/society needs protection from, etc.
Before I discuss this quote, here is a description of imprisonment (Joanne Hemenway, 2010, Forget them not: a holistic guide to prison ministry, Wipf & Stock: OR, p. xiii): "Terrible suffering is what the present prison system with the motif of retributive justice incures, for it generates isolation, shame, rejection, and loneliness; it stokes the emotional fires of anger and rage. Ultimately, it breeds deep disconnection, which only serves to fuel further cycles of violence."
Can there be a form of slavery that is more compassionate, caring, fair and just than what is described above with imprisonment (which many people, including Christians, accept as just for those who have committed particular crimes)? Certainly.
Isn't Marshall saying it could be argued that a certain form of slavery could be used by our modern criminal justice systems as a more humane (i.e. compassionate, caring, good, fair and just to human beings) sentencing option for those who have committed crimes than a prison sentence in a modern prison?
The person who undergoes slavery could ask his master for a letter of recommendation to improve his chances at future employment after his time in slavery comes to an end and if he has done excellent work for his master. There is no reason why that can't happen in a master-slave relationship. Prisoners, on the other hand, often find it very hard to obtain work after spending so much time confined in a prison environment. Prisoners might if lucky get programs or penal labor inside prison to improve useful skills but a master could deliver a program, or hire someone to deliver a program, to improve useful skills of his slave.
The person who undergoes slavery would perhaps have greater freedom to move about in a community. The slave would not necessarily be confined in a cell, or behind a fence/gate/wall like a prisoner is with imprisonment. The slave might travel with his master as he goes on a journey around the world. The master of a slave preferring not to travel for whatever reason may want a trusted slave to visit and care for a sick relative located in another country. Prisoners might not be allowed to leave the prison property (including outdoor areas of the prison) while serving their sentence let alone be able to travel to another country during their prison sentence.
A sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole lasts a lifetime. The best forms of slavery do not last a lifetime (unless the slave loves and cares for his master and chooses to serve the master for the rest of their life) but only a certain time period.
Col8lok8 (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some things you can write in an encyclopedia article but not write in a philosophy paper, and there are other things you can write in a philosophy paper but not write in an encyclopedia article.
Synthesis of materials is permitted in a philosophy paper, but not on Wikipedia.
Statements like "Christians consider unjust slavery to be unjust" are permitted in a philosophy paper for clarification, because it does not explicitly state anything about "just slavery", but they are not permitted on Wikipedia because (outside philosophic writings) it does imply "Christians consider just slavery to exist," even if you claim "no stand is taken on just slavery".
Likewise, statements like "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery" are not permitted on Wikipedia because it does imply that "Christians consider unharsh, fair, and just slavery to be permissibile", even if you claim "no stand is taken on unharsh, fair, and just slavery". tahc chat 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to who? That which is presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence. There is no implication of just slavery there unless you add in some extra assumptions other than the words found in the actual statement. The statement only adjudicates on what people think of slavery where it is unjust (which may be all slavery, but may not - leaving the question open is not the same as implying there is just slavery). Philosophical discussions about possible worlds, generally speaking, are part of human knowledge. They occur in philosophical literature all the time. They are encyclopedic. In any case, a more specific statement highlighting opposition to unjust slavery is to be preferred over a generalisation of slavery which may or may not be true.
I referred you to a quote by Marshall (and later one by Hemenway about imprisonment for comparison), outside philosophical discussions which you haven't responded to. Chris Marshall (2005, The little book of biblical justice, Good Books: TN, p. 46) who is discussing slavery as a punishment for those who committed crimes: "it could be argued that Hebrew slavery was a more humane institution than its modern equivalent of imprisonment".
Note: many people, including Christians, do indeed accept that spending time inside a modern prison is fair and just at least for those people who are considered to deserve prison time as a punishment, or for whom it is considered they are a safety and security threat that the community/country/society needs protection from, etc.
There arguably could be forms of slavery that would be more humane in modern criminal justice than modern imprisonment which, rightly or wrongly, is accepted as just by many. Forms of slavery allowing greater freedom of movement perhaps even movement across countries, allowing greater degree of self-actualisation, allowing greater pay/rewards than low-paying penal labor, allowing a greater opportunities for employment afterwards with good words to those who would hire them as workers from their former master, and lasting for a shorter amount of time (unless the slave loves and cares for the master and voluntarily wishes to serve them for the rest of their lives.Col8lok8 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just does not mean perfect justice or the Hebrew shalom (the way that God originally intended for the world to be with humans living in loving relationship with each other and caring for creation under God's loving rule). Even in an article about Christian views of slavery. Obviously, slavery is against the way God intended the world to be. But so is imprisonment. There is no indicaton that God originally created humans to be creatures confined in prison with restrictions on their rights. Moreover, Christians generally do not hold that circumstances of perfect justice can be achieved by human effort before the supposed glorious Second Coming of Jesus. Col8lok8 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

contentious?

I think it should say something like "many Christian organizations reject..." or "various Christian organizations reject..." instead of "the Catholic Church and many other Christian organizations reject...", but other than that...
@Tgeorgescu:: ...how is it what Jess wrote contentious? tahc chat 00:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jess included the words any slavery. Those words are not supported by the sources which by and large refer to bad examples in the past, and bad examples in the modern day. To reject historic evil in slavery, and the present evil in modern slavery is not to reject any slavery. Moreover, no source cited ever explicitly includes the words 'not only in the actual world but in any possible world' in reference to slavery but rather make it abundantly clear in those sources they are talking about the actual world. There may or may not be fair and just slavery in the actual world but it does not rule out the possibility of fair and just slavery existing in at least one possible world (and I repeat that possible world may or may not be the actual world). You do not have to hold that just slavery actually exists to limit a statement about slavery to a rejection of 'unfair and unjust slavery' because that could be a description all, almost all, most, or just some forms of slavery. Yet, 'any slavery' does not bear the same freedom of interpretation (it must be interpreted as 'all slavery is rejected as unfair and unjust) as a more limited statement would have. Saying that bad examples should be rejected is not to make a pronouncement on whether good examples exist. It may be the case that bad examples completely exhaust the number of examples and that all examples of slavery are rejected as unfair and unjust.Leaving the question of the existence of just slavery open is not the same thing as implying there are fair and just examples of slavery. That is another discussion (one which I am also happy to have). Col8lok8 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument against the clear statements attributed to those organizations seems contrived. Reference to all possible worlds is a far fetched philosophical musing. It bears no relationship to what the average reader understands by slavery, or even to what reputable dictionaries of the English language understand by slavery. While you could write a philosophical paper thereupon, it is WP:UNDUE and it would be so even if such paper were cited after being published with peer-review in a reputable philosophy journal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not my only argument:
I am not proposing that we add (A) "in modern times, although not completely exhaustive of all examples of slavery, Christian organisations reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust slavery". I am proposing that we add something like (B) "in modern times, Christian organisations reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust slavery". The question of whether 'unfair and unjust slavery' is an exhaustive description of all conceivable examples of slavery is another discussion. All this statement does in regards to the existence of fair and just slavery is leave the discussion open rather than closing it. There is a big difference between (A) and (B) in the assumptions contained in the statements. The words 'although not completely exhaustive of all examples of slavery' is neither explicit nor implied by statement (B).
Don't people see how a statement like 'in modern times, Christian organisations reject any slavery' definitively closes the discussion as to whether there are fair and just forms of slavery that Christian organisations accept as permissibile? It is not a neutral point of view (from the policy page: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."). What can be more neutral than a statement about modern Christians or modern Christian organisations that leaves open the discussion of whether fair and just slavery actually exists (not endorsing or rejecting either the position that it does exist or the position that it does not exist)? Col8lok8 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"what the average reader understands by slavery" The average reader comes to the issue of slavery with many misconceptions (largely from a too narrow view of slavery). When slavery is mentioned, they will think of the Atlantic slave trade, William Wilberforce and Abolitionism, human trafficking, or military use of children. But 'any slavery' is a very wide term, whereas these concern especially bad examples of slavery. The average reader always has misconceptions that need to be corrected, and articles on Wikipedia ideally do that rather than encouraging misconceptions.Col8lok8 (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? All possible worlds? That's not really our concern. If the precise wording is the problem, we can rephrase it without a wholesale removal of content. What if we remove "any" from the sentence? Does that work for you?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to tahc's question, I don't see anything contentious about those statements. They are verifiable, they are attributed to their respective denominations. Certainly they should not be deleted because of an original research claim and an undue claim. Col8lok8 argument is to right great wrongs and only makes sense to a handful of philosophers having no important subjects to discuss. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
False. Let's take this statement: 'Most costumers reject the terrible taste of the green tea ice cream at the small cafe down the street from here.'
Does this statement assume there are other flavours of ice cream on sale at that cafe? No, if that statement is true it only expresses an opinion about the taste of the green tea flavoured ice cream (that it tastes terrible). For all we know that could be the only ice cream available at the cafe. Yes, there are other flavours of ice cream but we are not told whether they are on sale at the cafe. So the question of other ice cream flavours remains open.
In the same way, 'most Christian organisations reject the permissibility of unjust slavery' is only stating a view on unjust slavery (that it is rejected as not permissible by most Christian organisations). For all we know unjust slavery could be the only sort of slavery in the actual world, and in that case the permissibility of all slavery is rejected by Christian organisations. You are allowed to hold that point of view. Yes, the statement is weaker than 'most Christian organisations reject the permissibility of any slavery' but that is exactly why the statement is more neutral. It doesn't provide a conclusion for readers of Wikipedia as to whether Christian organisations know of any examples of just slavery that is permitted. So the question of existence or non-existence of just slavery remains open.
The problem is that most statements against slavery by Christian denominations are referring to specific examples of bad slavery that have occurred or are occurring (human trafficking or the Atlantic slave trade for example), or time-specific slavery (historic/past, modern). The words 'any slavery' does not follow. It is better to use something that is supported like a rejection on the part of Christian organisations of unjust slavery.
All the sources used to support 'any slavery' support 'unfair and unjust slavery' as well as all of them are condemning the examples of slavery they mention as unfair and unjust.Col8lok8 (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_views_on_slavery&oldid=704882598"