Crown and Covenant Academy

Tuesday, December 05, 2006


Do we even have anything to argue about this time?? I can't remember, I guess we can just debate in depth issues like,
  • Were the Shelby's Christians?
  • Was Uncle Tom a Christian?
  • Was Goerge's decision to run a away biblical?
  • What about Eliza's decision?
  • Who is cooler, Sam or Andy?
  • Who can get all the reading done first?
  • Why does Heather's book smell the best?
  • or better yet...who's book smells the best?
  • which character's dialogue was the hardest to read...

anyway, take a stab at any of these admirable topics, or none at all, or make up your own...It's your choice...

enjoy

posted by Andrew @ 3:25 PM  

66 Comments:

  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    hmmmmmmm.....sam or andy......i like both, and you can't really have one without the other. so i think its a tie.

    i haven't smelt anyone else's books yet(except andrew's which smells like.....actually i don't remember)so i'll have to say mine. it has the wonderful "old book" smell and just seems to take you back to the good ol' days when they rode horse back and all the girls always wore dresses....those were the days!

     

  • At 5:25 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    i think the hardest dialogue was either the trader or sam and andy. it had the slang and the writing was the same as the pronunciation... but chose one character? thats nearly impossible.

    i'll have to think about the other questions before i give an answer.

     

  • At 6:10 PM, Blogger Andrew said…

    yeah, u really don't want to remember the smell of my book becuase it was really...uh...yeah...lol

     

  • At 7:03 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    uh yeah what?

     

  • At 6:44 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    I would say that Sam was the cooler guy, because he was the main perportrator of the mischief aiding in Eliza's escape, and most certainly had more head knowledge than Andy. It seems that Sam was the one thinking up most of the tricks, and Andy knew how to follow his lead.

    Dan

     

  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Andrew said…

    let's just say it smelled really wierd...

    i'm not sure about sam and andy either...though sam was pretty cool i'll have to admit...

    and i think sam's was the hardest to read, especially when he's playing mind games with the trader cuz man i got lost! lol, also the discussion between haley and the other traders was kinda tough to follow...

     

  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    yeah i remember you saying that much. but i'm trying to think what it smelled like... a comparison is what i'm looking for. hm...what do sam, daniel, and oee's books smell like?

    yes!!! i'm glad i'm not the only one who was lost through those conversations!

    very good point daniel. i'll have to agree with you on that. too bad we all agree on this one=)jk jk. i like to avoid violence-lol

     

  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    ...where's sam and oee on this conversation? i'll email oee if you guys get sam on....then we will be arguing. who knows, he might say andrew's book smells best.

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    -I don't think Georges running away was biblical. In Colossions 3 it clearly tells slaves to obey their masters, not as men pleasers, but as if they were serving God.
    -I think my book smeels like chemically treated, cewed up wood with a black liquid sprayed in a somewhat organized fassion on it.

    Sam

     

  • At 2:31 PM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    A. K. A. printed manuscript, Sam.

    As for finishing the reading assignment first, I've read to the end of chapter 14.

    Yes, the Bible does say that slaves are to obey their masters as they would obey God. But Moses also commanded that the Israelites were not to return runaway slaves to their masters. And then there's the question of rightful authority versus unjust authority. Romans 13 says that all authority has been granted by God, which implies that all authority to perform unChristian acts is not really authority. Yes, slavery is not inherently evil, but I believe we can all agree that the slave trade and the rascist view of Blacks are blatantly contradictory to Scripture. Therefore, the case can be made that the slavemasters did not have true authority over their slaves.
    Also, Ephesians 6 reads, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." This phrase, "in the Lord," means that obedience contrary to God's law is not required. Of course, the masters may not have routinely commanded their slaves to commit sin, but they were not justified in treating their slaves harshly.
    Even so, we must realize that not all masters were harsh. In fact, the majority of Southern slave-owners were nice to their slaves. The harsh slave-driver stereotype has been largely formulated from isolated cases that in no way, shape, or form represent the whole of the slave-owner community. That's about as much as I have to say about this right now, so please continue!

     

  • At 2:32 PM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Forgot to sign my name--

    Dan

     

  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    you said that the Bible said that people weren't supposed to return runaway slaves. this may be true, but is it right for the slave to run away in the first place? that is something i don't see being answered. i don't think they should've run away because the Bible commands us to obey those that God sets over us. whether we're black or white.

    ....i haven't started reading yet... oops!

     

  • At 7:54 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    hey yals!!!!guess what!!! i read through the hebrew chapter and understood it!!!!!!!!!!!

     

  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    ...o yeah and i smelled oee's book last night. i thought it smelled really nice, but she didn't agree. i think she described it as "blah" with a gross look on her face.-lol-

     

  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Yes, I finished the reading assignment today! I'm so happy!

    Heather,
    I have not seen a biblical passage explicitly allowing slaves to run away. But remember what else I said; the case can be made that the slave-owners did not have rightful authority over the slaves, in which case the slaves were not really slaves, and therefore not subject to the rule of submission to lawful owners.

    I might add further that not all the slaves in biblical times were Hebrews. The qualifications for owning a Hebrew slave seem to imply indentured servitude as opposed to "just plain" ownership of a person. But it was provided that the Hebrews could buy captives of war to be their servants. In the case of American slavery, the colored slaves were not fellow citizens nor war captives. Britain was not at war with Africa, but they would just barge in, grab a bunch of people, and ship them off to the markets. So we can say that the slaves were not true war captives, and therefore unqualified for the rules of slavery. This also can be interpreted to mean that since the qualifications of biblical slavery were not explicitly met, the slaves were not really slaves, and therefore had no obligation to obey the biblical laws of slavery.

    Dan

     

  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger Andrew said…

    I think my book smells the worst! ha!

    First
    slaves should not run away from their masters

    so, when you catch a slave that has run away, i guess it means you take him back...
    and if there's reason for him to run away (like abuse or something) then he is automatically free anyway by law.
    so my question is, is which slaves were they not to return? the hebrew slaves? or the war slaves?

    u know what...i think heather's book smells the best...period.
    it definitely has that classic smell that lures even those who don't like books...

    of course most slaveowners had authority over the slaves...and don't quote the verse about children, daniel, quote the verse about slaves...lol.

    Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ

    the mindset of that time was not biblical, but most slave owners treated their slaves biblically, (i think...and am pretty sure of). so the authority is there...

    lol, i haven't started reading either...;-)

     

  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Andrew,
    1) Moses explicitly stated that a runaway slave was NOT to be returned to his master. And since Moses didn't specify whether he was referring to Hebrew slaves or war captives, we can assume for the moment that he meant neither slave was to be returned.

    2) Why do you say that most slave-owners had authority over their slaves? The slaves were not acquired lawfully, so how do their masters have rightful ownership and authority over them? Even if the owners treat the slaves in a biblical manner, they have no excuse to ignore the Bible when it comes to acquiring slaves.

    Of course, for a Christian to buy slaves would seem a better option than not buying one and letting the slaves be carted off to the plantations in Cuba or Panama where they would be treated like dirt and most likely die without hearing the Gospel. In that light, a Christian could buy a slave for the purpose of educating and supporting him and getting him started in life, in return for which the "slave" would serve the "master" to pay for his work. But I believe that the American slave-owners had no biblical right to force servitude on a slave who had not been lawfully or biblically acquired.

    3) You quoted the verse, "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ." You will notice, however, that the verse says, "as to Christ." Stowe makes it a point that many slaves were required by their masters to do unChristian acts, which is inexcusable on the master's part. Also, the verse reads, "be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh." The contention that their masters were not rightful owners could, it seems, invalidate your use of this verse in supporting your claim.

    I also ask that you consider the following verse that says, "And you, masters, do the same thing to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." This passage speaks of a two-way relationship, the servant obeying the master in sincerity, and the master treating the servant with all humility due a fellow man.


    But one key issue in this discussion is that the Americans viewed the Blacks as less than human, or at least inferior to whites, using the verse, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants he shall be to his brethren." But as far as we can see, the Blacks were not descended from Ham's son Canaan but from Cush, his other son. So that old argument does not apply. And I believe we all agree that the verse does not degrade the Canaanites to a less-than human creature, whatever else it may mean.

    That is all I have to say at this point. I am now open for cross-examination.

     

  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    -Uncle Tom is an example of the right kind of slave; no matter what he obeys his master, but doesn't go against Gods word.

    Sam

    PS. The Blacks should be happy that we brought them over here because if we haddn't they'd be over in Africa starving and dying of AIDS.

     

  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Meg said…

    Sam--
    I think you've definitely hit on one of Stowe's key points--Uncle Tom as ideal slave. As we will discuss next week, though, his character is among the most criticized parts of this novel.

    However, your P.S. is inaccurate and does not respond to the topic at hand. For one thing, the righteousness of stealing people and selling them into slavery is not weighted by whether they will have a better life in their new country. In fact, you might make the argument that their lives were not as good, since they'd been living free in Africa and then enslaved in North America. You may argue that when they were brought here, some were evangelized, but I certainly think this would be a circumstance of God using evil (kidnapping) for good, as in the case of Joseph.

    Moreover, not everyone in Africa, white or black, is starving or dying of AIDS. And those who are need our prayer and compassion.

    Please do be careful of your tone. We are online, and anyone with a computer and an internet connection can read our blog. Let us show that can we can discuss literature and have fun while still giving glory to the Lord.

     

  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    i agree with meg on your ps sam. and do you think dying of aids is better than dying of slavery? i don't think either is good.

     

  • At 6:16 PM, Blogger Andrew said…

    good point heather...i wouldn't really know...

    also sam, i was correcting daniel's quote and actually wasn't making any refutable claim...

    but yes the authority is there, unless a slaveowner abuses his slave then he is rightful owner, just becuase of the prevalant mindset of the day, or just becuase the top political thinkers thought that way doesn't mean the authority wasn't there...

    but then again i'm not sure really of whether i believe anything i'm sayin i'm just stating the opposite...lol

     

  • At 9:04 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    is AIDS painful? cause i think dying of slavery would be pretty painful..... idk...

     

  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Andrew said…

    i would have no idea...
    maybe so
    but then your looking at two situations
    have a chance of getting AIDS and be free
    or
    have no chance of getting AIDS and be a slave..

    depends on the value of freedom i guess

     

  • At 2:20 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    or do you mean how much YOU value freedom?

     

  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger Andrew said…

    that too... ;-)

     

  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    cause i think those who are free and don't have AIDS would value freedom less than those who do have AIDS... but thats just my oppinion.

     

  • At 6:12 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Andrew,
    I wouldn't necessarily say that the authority is still there. At least some slaves were war captives of other African tribes, and the tribes sold them to the British, which would mean they were lawful, but--and you can correct me on this if I am wrong--I have heard something like this, that some African tribes started kidnapping people from other tribes and selling them to the British. This would make the slaves unlawful, as they weren't true war captives but kidnapped hostages; and kidnapping is punishable by death in the Bible.

    It may also be contended that the slaves were not lawful after a certain point, because the Bible commanded for Hebrew slaves to be kept for six years only. I could not find the passage regarding the keeping of war captives as slaves, however. Deuteronomy also says that slave-owners should not opress their slaves, whether fellow countrymen or foreign captives; but they are to give them their daily wages before the sun goes down. Although not all masters opressed their slaves or kept them for more than six years, not all the slaves were unlawful, at least at one point in time. But, if the conditions for owning Hebrew servants applies to this case, it was not lawful for masters to keep their slaves for more than six years, or to sell them to someone else so as to keep them in perpetual slavery. Moreover, the Bible explicitly states that abused slaves are to be set free.

    Therefore, I conclude that it was lawful for all the abused slaves to escape from their masters, and--if the six year rule applies--for all slaves kept for over six years to escape. If, also, the slaves were kidnapped by Africans and sold, and thus not being true war captives, they were unlawful slaves, and had no lawful obligation to serve their masters.

    But even though it was lawful for them to run away from their masters under correct circumstances, it was not necessarily right. Although the law permits escape, a slave should not run away if it goes against his or her conscience.

    Notwithstanding, I don't intend to prove that it was always right for each individual slave to run away, but only that it was at least lawful for certain slaves to escape, under certain circumstances, as prescribed by the Scriptures.

    Dan

     

  • At 6:49 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    how, then, would the slave traders know which slaves were those captured by war and which by kidnapping? they can't trust all the slaves(because some would lie just to get out of bondage) but other than this question, i think i agree with you....

     

  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Andrew said…

    one thing...
    uh, if the slave is given wages...he isn't a slave anymore...

     

  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    hmmmmm.... very true....

     

  • At 10:44 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    -Okay, I'm sorry about the PS. The thing that prompted it was Mr. Fiech read a book by an Arican American who said essentialy what I said ie. that he was glad that his ansestors were made slaves because if they haddn't been, he wouldn't have the standard of living he did and would be over in Africa possibly never hearing about Christ and dying of AIDS and starvation.

    -He said it, not me.

    Sam

     

  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Heather,
    As I said before, I don't know this statistic for sure, so it may or may not be true. But whether or not it is true, the question is not whether the slave traders knew which ones were lawful slaves or not. The traders were only concerned with making money and didn't care anything about the people they bought. Even though slavery itself is not inherently evil, the slave trade and its methods are undisputedly unbiblical.

    Andrew,
    I am inclined to disagree. If you define a slave as someone who works for no wages, all the biblical passages we have seen come to naught because they do not mention the workers as slaves but as servants (at least in the New King James), who were regularly given wages for their work. But even though the American slaves may not have received pay for their work, they were at least given room and board, which can be considered a form of wages. Let me quote for you the Deuteronomy passage:

    "You shall not opress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your gates. Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set hs heart on it; lest he cry out to the LORD, and it be sin to you." (Deut. 24:14-15)

    See also Deuteronomy 25:4, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and Jesus' words, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

    From this I conclude that slaves and servants alike are to be given wages for their work. A slave is not defined by working without pay.

    Dan

     

  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    but, unbiblically, don't servants get wages and slaves none? thats the way i've always known to be the past and present.... no idea...

     

  • At 12:28 AM, Blogger Andrew said…

    ok, daniel,

    it can depend on your idea of "wage"

    a slaves wages could possibly mean food and shelter...but that's it.

    Therefore "wages" as in money is not required of slaves becuase then he is in the workforce. So i guess you could say that a slave has pay, it's just not a salary and not the pay we think of...

    another thing, your proof text has nothing to do with slaves...

    "hired servant" is not a slave, and i don't believe i would automatically assume that a "laborer" is a slave either, i would expect a hired servant and a laborer to get "wages", not a slave

    and are we talking about "workers" or "slaves"...there is a difference, try to keep the definitions straight...

    heather,
    exactly what i was thinkin...

     

  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    great minds think alike!!! cause that was exactly what i was thinking!

     

  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Great minds *snicker*

    Sam

     

  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    yeah i said great minds! if you wanna challenge that then bring it on!i have 3 bros and 2 sistas and i know what a challenge is!

     

  • At 1:43 PM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Andrew,
    Whatever my definition or your definition of wages or slaves may be, the point is that the slaves' escaping was biblically justifiable.

    Point 1: It is likely, if not known to be true, that the African tribes went from selling war captives to kidnapping people for the express purpose of selling them--in which case the slaves were not true war captives. Therefore, they were not under lawful authority or obligation to serve, and were to be considered free.

    Point 2: The slave trade within the States often brought about the disruption of families. A man's--or woman's--duty is first to God, then to their family, then to their secular authorities. So even if they were lawful slaves in the States, they would have had the right to run away in order to preserve their families. Even if their master was not cruel or physically abusive (as will be discussed later), it would be better to run away from a kind master than to wait until just before being carted off to the market.
    Even if a married slave was not in imminent threat of being separated from family, the possibility would conceivably present itself in the future. So if a slave wanted to protect his posterity after him, running away at this time would be lawful.

    Point 3: Slaves would sometimes run away from their masters on account of the master being physically abusive. Escape for this reason need not be argued any more than on the basis of biblical text alone, because the Bible is explicit in this matter. "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if a man knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth." (quote may not be exactly verbatim) Also, their were instances where the master would sexually abuse a slave or command the slave to commit unbiblical acts, e.g. work on the Sabbath or inflict undeserved or inhumane punishment on another slave. As mentioned before, a man's duty is to God first, then to man. So if man requires sin of him, his duty requires him to resist it for God's sake; and if that can best be achieved by running away, so be it.

    Point 4: A cruel master may not be physically abusive, but he may defraud or cheat his slaves in one way or another. He may not actively abuse them such as by beating them, but he may oppress them under constant threats of fear or withholding food, clothing, or shelter from them. The Bible is clear in its commands that a man shall not oppress the stranger, the fatherless, the poor, the widow, or the foreigner. And in certain places the Bible says that if a man does not properly provide for his slave or servant, the servant shall go out free without any further obligation. So slaves would or could be justified in running away from such a master.

    Point 5: This next point depends on what definition the Black slaves would take in regard as to whether they were fellow countrymen or war captives. The Bible explicitly states in Exodus 21 that a fellow countryman would only be obliged to serve six years, or until the year of Jubilee (which took place every fifty years) and after that he would go free. So if the slaves were under that definition, they would be justified in escaping if they had been held over the prescribed time.
    If, on the other hand, they were war captives, the six years service rule would not apply, but there are other obligations of the master that still apply. A slave, whether a fellow countryman or war captive is individual property, which was not to be permanently sold. I have heard an argument that the Bible speaks of war captives being the property of "you and your sons forever." I have not seen that verse myself, so I cannot say whether that argument is true or not. But if it is, which is certainly possible, it would be even more so unlawful for the perpetual trading of slaves that took place. Therefore, a slave could run away from his second or third master because they had no right to him; and since his first master would not want him back, as it was allowed for war captives to be set free, he could lawfully go free.

    Point 6: Now you may say, "Doesn't the Bible command people to love their enemies, and to submit even to cruel masters?" As to the latter part of that question, I say that if the masters were not lawful, slaves were not obligated to obey. And to love an enemy does not always mean to submit to him. Of course, a slave might feel God calling him to stay, and therefore not run. This is okay, as a man should follow his conscience in applying the Scriptures. So it is not always right for a slave to run away, if his conscience would condemn him in that action. But I am not saying that it was always right for slaves to run away, but that it was lawful for them to run away. Paul says, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but not all things edify," and, "all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." So whether an act permissable by law is right for a certain man to do depends on his conscience and convictions before God. But whether or not it was right for every single runaway slave to do so, they were allowed by law to escape and conduct themselves as free people would do.

    Dan

     

  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    Dan: have you ever thought that (replying to your 2nd point) if a slave had a good master and famliy of which he didn't want to be separated, couldn't he just ask the master to set him free?

    i think that miss ophelia's out look on slavery is really confusing.... and same with St. Clare's.

    i finished chapter 18!!! whoohoo!!!

    H.H.

     

  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Andrew said…

    Before we go any further i'd like to say 2 things,

    first, yes sam, great minds...and i wouldn't get into a fight with heather...trust me...u don't

    and second, by law, in america a slave was property of the master. so it really doesn't matter where the slave came from, whether he was war captive, whether he wasn't a war captive, the authority was there period. now, if you think there is a problem with that, we can argue about whether the law was biblical or not...

    also what about foriegn slaves? do they have to be war captive?

    Point 1
    I don't think so! i first would like to point out that there isn't indesputable evidence that the slaves were not war captives. also if that's the case then who decides whether they war captives or not??
    and could u tell me again what your reason for this point is, what your references are? i'd also like u to tell me how "foreign slaves" fit in...

    point 2
    would they really have the right to run away??
    think about it, if a kind master has to sell a slave family in order to keep from going under, then who's fault is it if they get split up?
    the traders, so now the question is, is it lawful to run away from traders?
    also what about the bible passage not garunteeing a marriage?
    also, do u know the actual possiblity of being sold from a kind master...think about that one...

    point 3
    ah, again, by american law it was lawful, by biblical law it is not lawful...
    so again, it's the fault of the american law.

    Point 4
    again, by american law it was lawful, by biblical law it is not lawful
    (i think i see a pattern...)

    point 5
    i'm pretty sure 100% of black slaves weren't fellow countrymen...;-)
    also, does the bible say anything aobut foreign slaves?? like u talk about war captives and fellow countrymen, but if the african slaves aren't either of them, then what are they?

    point 6
    ok, again
    american law provides for it, the biblical law doesn't
    (i think there might be a problem with the american law...lol)

    also,
    if a female slave comes to your door cold, tired, starved, and with a child and she tells you she ran away, what would YOU do?
    how would you know she was a "lawful runaway"...

    P.S. rock on heather! [virtual high-five]

     

  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    i was wondering how they could tell the difference between a "lawful" slave and an unlawful slave..... so yeah, how do you tell? way to go andrew!

    H.H.

    P.S.(virtual high-five back=)

     

  • At 1:38 PM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Andrew
    Thank you for your comment. I think I might need to clarify my points a little:

    I would like to begin by saying that when I speak of law, I am referring to biblical law unless otherwise specified. Biblical law is unshakeable and without fault; American law is not. So I do not intend to support my views with any other law except that of the Bible.

    Now, to the points!

    Point 1: I admit, I didn't say it was true. But it is still plausible, and highly likely. So even though we don't know whether it happened, we shouldn't presume it didn't happen just for lack of conclusive evidence. The hostile African tribes certainly had the motive, opportunity, and ability to do such a thing. So the circumstancial evidence is there, but not proof. So though we can't say for sure it did happen, we can't say for sure it didn't happen. So for now, let's just leave the possibility open. Even if it isn't true that the African tribes did this, I believe that proof can be otherwise found of the Black slaves being unlawful by biblical standards.

    Point 2: I think you should clarify your refutation a little. I'm not quite sure what all your refutation has to bear on my original argument at the moment.
    But I will say this: that even a kind master may run into debt, and be obliged to sell a slave. I do admit that if a slave was a fellow countryman (which will be later discussed), he would not have a right to remain with his family unless he had been married before becoming a slave. If he was a war captive, the Bible makes no provision either favoring or disfavoring the breaking up of slave families.

    Points 3, 4, 6: As previously stated, my references to law are only to biblical law unless otherwise specified. So I believe we are straight on that.

    Point 5: I think that for this one I should clarify the regulations for slaves in both cases.
    First, for fellow countrymen: a fellow countryman was only to serve for six years and then to be set free, unless he consented to be a perpetual servant to his master. And indeed, the Bible says that a servant is property. But property was not allowed to be sold permanently, but returned at the year of Jubilee. And the Bible makes no provision for a servant being sold to one person, then another, and so on, as far as I have seen.
    Second, for war captives: This is a little less clear, as the ceremonial law called for the execution of all male war captives. But the regulations specified are these: a war captive was to be claimed as individual property. If they did not please their master, they were to go free. The Bible explicitly states that they were not to be sold for money or treated brutally.

    Third, as to those who are neither fellow countrymen or war captives: I have not seen any biblical provision for the enslavement of anyone who was not a fellow countryman or war captive.


    I therefore conclude: if the Black slaves were to be considered fellow countrymen, they would have the right to run away if they were still kept against their will after their time was up. If they had consented to be a perpetual servant, they were to be kept by their original master, because the Bible says that a perpetual slave should serve his master "forever." I see no provision for a perpetual slave to be sold except perhaps temporarily, and then to be returned.
    If, on the other hand, they were war captives, they would have the right to run away if they had been sold or abused.
    If they were neither fellow countrymen or war captives, the evidence I have at this point leads me to believe that they were unlawful slaves by biblical standards and had every biblical right to escape.

    Dan

     

  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Andrew said…

    [disclaimer: the writer of this comment did not feel pressed to proof read it]

    first of all, please answer my questions...u have the burden of proof...

    second, about american law, i think we all agree on the biblical law, so i am mainly asserting our dispute with the american law. you say that biblically the slaves had right, so then you need to start thinking about the laws set up in america at that time...

    point 1

    it's plausible maybe, but not highly likely until i see some very trustworth sources. until then your argument has no weight and i don't think you can use it. again i bring up the question of "who decides?"

    point 2

    clarify my refutation?
    heh
    ok, you said that a slave family should/could run away from a good master to escape seperation through the trade.

    so i asked you to think about that one. who is splitting the family? the master or the person selling the slaves in the market (the trader) it's normally the traders fault they get separated. so running away from a master just because you think that you might get sold isn't right. (remember eliza's case is a little different)

    points 3,4,6 already discussed

    point 5
    hang on...
    what is a fellow countryman??
    i don't think the AFRICAN slaves were fellow countrymen to AMERICAN masters....
    the fellow countrymen s far as i see it are people who have sold themselves into slavery and i haven't heard of any of those in the US

    so there is no biblical reference to "foreign slaves"?

    also please look at my quesiton at the end of my last comment, i request an answer...

     

  • At 12:45 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    here here!

     

  • At 6:06 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Andrew,
    I am not trying to discuss whether AMERICAN law was right or not, but whether the slaves were BIBLICALLY justified in running away, which I believe they are. Any contradictory American law, then, is unbiblical and has no bearing on my argument except as an oppressive and ungodly institution that needs be fought and done away with.

    Now, to the points!

    Point 1: OK, I think that we are pretty much in agreement on this one. If true, it gives good evidence that the slaves were unbiblically held; if not, it doesn't. So I don't think we need to argue any more on this one.

    Point 2: I believe that whether a slave would be justified in running away to protect his family would be determined by whether he was a fellow countryman or war captive or otherwise. If he was a fellow countryman, he would not have a right to protect his family that way unless he was already married before being sold into slavery. If he was a war captive or otherwise, it seems to me he would.

    Points 3, 4, 6: All in agreement

    Point 5: I think we are all in agreement that IF slaves were to be considered fellow countrymen, they would be justified in running away.

    I am running out of time at this moment, so I will address the rest later when I come back.

    Dan

     

  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Andrew said…

    I KNOW!!!!!!

    i'd like you to know what I think...
    i told you that since you believe it was biblically right (by biblical law...) for slaves just to run away, then you would have a problem with american law right??? and if you have a problem with american law i would assume that you'd address it.

    point 1

    ok, very good, this point has now been dropped...(more debate terms)

    point 2

    daniel, daniel, daniel...

    ok, how many slaves in the american slave trade do you know were fellow countryman?? just name one, and i'll believe you, but as far as i know, there were zero. so, fellow countrymen i think has no value in this argument therefore we have to assume they were all war captives since point 1 was dropped.

    also, i brought up the idea of the traders fault not the owners. is it right to run away from the "master" or the "trader". i personally, using your logic would think that running away from the trader is right and not running away from the "master

    point 3,4,6
    ditto

    point 5, BUT, they are NOT fellow countrymen!

    anyway, hopefully we can clear up some of these useless squabbles...lol, that's a fun word...squabbles...

     

  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    okay... i'm goin' both ways this time.

    Point 2:

    okay andrew.... i agree with you on most of this, but i have a question. what about the thing where they just pick up africans and ship them off to america? i know we just got finished discussing this, but i got lost in the middle of it and i'm almost lost on the rest of this. so jus let me know...

    Point 3,4, and 6:

    doesn't ditto mean "same here" or something? i can't remember...

    Point 5:

    exactly what i was thinking andrew...

    what does "squabbles" mean? it reminds me of scrupples, but i don't know what that means either...

    come on peeps! new post!... o yeah, i still don't have the thing, don't ask me what it is. all i know is that its the thing that adds my name to that lil list list up in the corner. and i know it would allow me to post... thats why i cant post....

    kk.... merry Christmas yals!!!

     

  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At 12:05 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    ....and a happy new year!!!

    H.H.

     

  • At 1:54 PM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Andrew,
    OK, I think we can hash this out a bit more now, since we can assume that the Blacks were not fellow countrymen.

    Before I continue with the points, I would like to give a few Bible passages on this subject. "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves." (Leviticus 25: 44-46)
    And, "If a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be toyou as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." (Leviticus 19: 33-34)

    The discussion of the points will continue on the next post, so that you can read this easier. It's probably easier to read several short posts than one long one.

    Dan

     

  • At 2:12 PM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Before I continue defending my points, I would like to ask you, why don't you think the Black slaves are fellow countrymen?

    But for now, I will be operating off the assumption that the Black slaves are not fellow countrymen.

    Point 2: The Bible makes no provision for the disruption of families of war captive slaves as it does for fellow countryman slaves. And even for the fellow countryman, the disruption is not by a trader but by the owner. Therefore in either case, A SLAVE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN RUNNING AWAY TO PRESERVE HIS FAMILY IF HIS MASTER SOLD HIM AND HIS FAMILY TO A TRADER.

    Point 5: As strangers in the land, the Black slaves were not to be traded, but permanent slaves of the family who bought them. Therefore, if the owner sold them, they were not under obligation to any other owner. And since the owner broke his commitment to keep them, I believe they would be justified in running away from him. The Bible makes no provision for the selling of war captives except in the case of a man desiring a female captive as wife, in which case trade is forbidden.

    As to your question about how you could tell the condition of a runaway slave, I contend that does not matter, because the Bible says, "You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him." (Deut. 23: 15-16)

    That's pretty much all I have to argue now.



    So what we DO agree on so far is this:

    1: Slaves could run away from an abusive master

    2: Slaves could run away from a master who demanded ungodly actions of them

    3: Slaves could run away from an unfair master

    4: Although it is lawful for them to do this, it may not always be RIGHT, depending on conscience and personal applications of the Bible.

    Dan

     

  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    i agree on your final points dan... and i'm kinda going between you, sam, and andrew. you say something i think is right,and then someone else says something the complete opposite and i say, "o thats true..." and then i don't know what to think. so for now i'm gonna sit back and watch this discussion, and see which i finally think is the right one.

    i am so sad!!! i thought that we had classes tomorrow and then i remembered that we didn't and i was all sad and everything=(. miss you all! do you have your homework done? what chapters are you on?

    Historionic Heather =)

     

  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    [in Jack Sparrow accent]
    "Welcome to the world of debate, lass"

    Only a real debate is a TON more orgorized then this.

    Sam

    PS. Andrew, run a counterplan.

     

  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    actually its "welcome to the carribean, love." in a drunk-hilarious type of way that jack sparrow speaks.lol. (i love that movie!) and seriously i've never debated anything with anyone else besides myself. cause i debate with myself a lot. so. yeah. i've never debated before. thats why i'm doing terrible-lol-

    c yals in....3 weeks, 1 hour, and 31 minutes!!! woohoo!!! only that much left!

     

  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Andrew,
    I have just recently come up with a few more bits of evidence.

    Point 1: The Bible says that people were not to be kidnapped and sold as slaves or mistreated. Therefore, kidnapped slaves were not under obligation to serve. But we are already straight on this point. I just thought that passage provided an interesting angle on the subject.

    Points 2 and 5: When the Bible speaks of war captives, the captive slaves were owned by citizens of the nation that took them captive. So the regulations for war captive slaves may not apply; but rather, the regulations for stranger and sojourner slaves. In that case, the Bible lists no provision for the breaking up of families or even trading for that matter. So I think this may help to clear things up a bit.

    Dan

     

  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    so are you saying (in my language at least) that biblically there is no supporting of the breaking up of families and the selling of slaves?

     

  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    new post peeps, come on!

     

  • At 6:52 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    I am curantly in the process of writting a new post, so hold your horses.

    Sam

     

  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    Heather,
    Not quite. What I am saying is that there are three types of slaves: fellow countrymen, war captives, or foreigners. The rules for the breaking up of slave families are only stated alongside the regulations for fellow countryman slaves. Therefore, since the Blacks were not fellow countrymen, I believe that they do not apply in any other case. Otherwise those rules would have been explicitly stated as applying to all three situations.

    Dan

     

  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    .... you lost me, but okay!...

     

  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    okay. i really didn't have time to say much or to take a good look at dan and sam's last post, so i'll check it now.

    sam: i don't have horses. i have patience though and yes i can control it for now=)

    Dan:....so are you saying that the owners of the slavers were lawful in splitting up the slaves?

    okay. now i think i've got it all....sort of.

     

  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    It's a figure of speech Heather.

    Sam

     

  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    i know=) i just wanted to give you a hard time-hehehehe-... yeah its one of my favorite figures of speech.-lol-

     

  • At 12:01 PM, Blogger Andrew said…

    sooo...big question...if there are no rules about splitting up families for the foreign slaves or war captives then WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT!!!!!

    ok, enough of that

    mabye i should run a counter plan...

     

  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger Gabriella Reed said…

    good idea=)

     

  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Lemony Snicket said…

    To answer your question, Heather,

    No, I am not saying that the slavers had a right to split slave families. I am saying that under the circumstances they had no right to split up slave families, and the slaves had a right to run away to preserve their families.

    Dan

    P. S. Now that there are two new posts, let's start putting our comments on them.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home