So the non-believing, non-slave owning, good deed person definitely goes to hell but the slave owning believer, who was welcomed by the church, may or may not. Better odds owning slaves. Got it.
What is wrong with owning slaves? Why would the slave owner be less deserving of his heavenly reward?
Most of the notables in the OT were slave owners. Even when not actually recognized as slaves, peasants were chattel to be used by and traded among the nobility, up until a very few hundred years ago. Nobility definitely included the priesthood of every major religion on every continent.
Is there a real difference between a slave owner and a King or priest running around the kingdom lopping the heads from miscreants and deflowering 13 year old virgins as the whim strikes?
I think there is a difference, with the benefit going to the slave owner, as long as he was a benevolent master.
Did the plantation owner keep families together? Did he educate the children? Did he keep his slaves well fed, well clothed, warm, and comfortable? Did he instill in them a sense of accomplishment and pride in work performed?
Many, some say most, in the American South were good Christian men who did so.
Of course over the course of history, time, and geography, there have been many who treated slaves of all colors as sexual playthings, or beasts of burden to be discarded as their usefulness expired.
And there is no denying the horrid conditions of the trans-atlantic slave transport ships where a high percentage of the cargo died and was tossed overboard. Or the cruelty of the black slave traders in Africa raiding villages and driving their captives to the coast for sale and transport.
Point being, many plantation owners were good and benevolent men, who did well consider the welfare of their slave property. Just as I consider the welfare of my dog, horse, or cow. Just as the OT Kings considered the welfare of their peasant tribe.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
