Slavery

[imhereforyou]

I saw someone say they're 'a slave to christ'.
The term slave/slavery has a negative connotation to most of us so it seemed odd to use the term in such a manner.
I get the meaning as it was used but I wonder how beneficial/positive it is to use such a word (or any other word) that has such a negative history in a way that is meant to be positive.

We all know words and their usage changes over time and even between cultures in current times, but as a teacher once told me "words have meanings - mean what you say and say what you mean."

Does society do this (use a word/term/phase that's know to be negative in a opposite manner) with any other belief system or is it unique within Christianity? Can you think of examples?
Is it healthy to do such a thing? Does, in this instance, using such a negative word/phrase/term in such a manner dilute, or take away the historical impact, word/phrase/term? Or does it make a positive meaning less positive?
Or should we be more loose with words and their meanings?

[Danmark]

The fact remains, and this is what I was explicitly referring to; that "the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" Is blatantly false. You can talk about gentiles exclusively, but that doesn't negate the facts.

Is your point that the Bible does not ADVOCATE slavery? It's obvious from the Biblical texts, offered here ad nauseam, that the Bible PERMITS enslavement of all except Jews. Do you have a BIBLICAL text that disputes that?

Permitting murder or adultery or theft, or slavery is the same as declaring those practices moral. THIS is the racist (or tribalist) immorality of the Bible and is further evidence the Bible is a man made tribalist collection of books.

The entire concept of a Universal God, creator of the universe, that so favors ONE tribe over all others is anathema to the concept of a God who loves all mankind.

[Bust Nak]

The fact remains, and this is what I was explicitly referring to; that "the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" Is blatantly false. You can talk about gentiles exclusively, but that doesn't negate the facts.

I still don't see how the claim is "blatantly false" when it says Hebrews are allowed to buy slaves from other nations and keep them as slaves for life. By more specific what your contention is, it's far from blatant what the falsehood is supposed to be. Is it the difference between recommending and merely condoning?

[bluethread]

Bust Nak post 104

So, an "egalitarian humanist" find slavery immoral, but a Christian defends slavery as moral. That is an interesting statement. If true it utterly condemns Christianity as immoral while it demonstrates that the secular humanist who believes humans should be treated fairly and equally has a superior morality to Christians.

The Torah submissive individual recognizes that the morality of slavery depends on the basis of one's morality. It may utterly condemn Christianity as immoral based on secular humanism. However, what makes secular humanism the absolute moral standard? I would contend that even professed egalitarians do not treat all humans equally. Regarding you throwing "fair" into the mix. That is also a subjective concept. Who says that secular humanism treats humans more fairly, secular humanists? Well, da.

All other aspects are never equal.

Are we still talking about an omnipotent deity? You are suggesting that adding a feature without affecting pre-existing feature is a logical impossibility?

Again, the omni card. It is poosible, but why is it necessary, because it makes you feel better?

That is true.

Only in the eyes of the egalitarian humanist. Morality is subject to the philosophy from which it is derived.

That's good enough for me - you worship a malevolent, less than morality perfect God.

No, I believ in a diety that is neither omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent. On what basis do you assert that is less than morally perfect?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 113 by bluethread]

Seems to me, being as objective and fair as I can be, that the tenets you are putting forward are just evil.
Evil as justified by a God that cannot even be shown to exist... something quite worse.

I don't even see how it could be considered otherwise.

[bluethread]

Yes, so what? Why can't a deity be apathetic or even hostile toward some?

Firstly,

Q: How do you know God is benevolent toward you? How do you know God loves you?
Q: Why would God not be benevolent towards all humans? Why would God not love all humans?
Q: Why worship and defend a malevolent being? Why do you trust such a being?

You might be worshiping and loving a being that does not care about you, might not love you.

First, How does my assurance regarding a deities concern for me make it not possible for that deity to be apathetic or even hostile toward some? Second, it is possible that a deity could be omnibenevolent, I just don't see that happening, so I am not going to defend that viewpoint. Third, what we had established is that the type of deity we are discussing is neither omnibenevolent nor omnimalevolent. I presume that you honor your parents, even though they are neither omnibenevolent nor omnimalevolent.

Secondly,

The bible says God is benevolent, loving towards all, towards all he has created.

"They celebrate your abundant goodness
and joyfully sing of your righteousness.
8 The Lord is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and rich in love.
9 The Lord is good to all;
he has compassion on all he has made."

That passage is speaking of general goodness and compassion, not omni-benevolence. We know that to be the case, because later in that same psalm it says, (Ps. 145:18) "The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them. The LORD watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy." Adonai is not equally benevolent to all. That is the point that we were discussing.

[shnarkle]

The fact remains, and this is what I was explicitly referring to; that "the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" Is blatantly false. You can talk about gentiles exclusively, but that doesn't negate the facts.

Is your point that the Bible does not ADVOCATE slavery?

Not even close. Slavery was assumed, and prevalent everywhere. The authors of the bible simply provide a better set of regulations than their neighbors. Regulations which I wholeheartedly advocate, and honestly believe need to be reintroduced into this country as soon as possible. The slavery we have here today is barbaric and immoral, and needs to be replaced with biblical slavery which as I mentioned earlier makes no distinction between who can or can't be made a slave. It simply allows for those who are already of a superior moral character to engage in slavery voluntarily to pay off debts they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Someone else has already gone into the finer points so I won't bother repeating it.

[shnarkle]

The fact remains, and this is what I was explicitly referring to; that "the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" Is blatantly false. You can talk about gentiles exclusively, but that doesn't negate the facts.

I still don't see how the claim is "blatantly false" when it says Hebrews are allowed to buy slaves from other nations and keep them as slaves for life. By more specific what your contention is, it's far from blatant what the falsehood is supposed to be. Is it the difference between recommending and merely condoning?

The pertinent phrase is this:

practicing slavery against all races except one"

The "one" presumably being the Hebrew race, no? This has already been proven false. Jews could be enslaved by their fellow Jews.

[shnarkle]

You claimed Exodus 21:2 and Deuteronomy 15:12-14 falisfied the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" (Hebrews.) I am asking you how so, when it clearly stated that non Hebrews can be kept as slaves for life.

Yes, the bible doesn't exclude Hebrews from slavery. A Hebrew, or Jew may enslave a fellow Jew to pay off debt etc. It isn't for life, but then the claim didn't specify for life.

We weren't talking about a "fellow Jew" though. We were talking about races except a "fellow Jew." Can you clarify that you now accept that neither of the verses you provided falisfied the claim in question?

No, can you accept that the one race that is exempted from slavery can't be Jews?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 113 by bluethread]

Seems to me, being as objective and fair as I can be, that the tenets you are putting forward are just evil.
Evil as justified by a God that cannot even be shown to exist... something quite worse.

I don't even see how it could be considered otherwise.

I do not even see what you are referring to. Could you be more specific and also what do you mean when you say "evil". On what do you base that concept?

[Danmark]

The fact remains, and this is what I was explicitly referring to; that "the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" Is blatantly false. You can talk about gentiles exclusively, but that doesn't negate the facts.

Is your point that the Bible does not ADVOCATE slavery?

Not even close. Slavery was assumed, and prevalent everywhere. The authors of the bible simply provide a better set of regulations than their neighbors. Regulations which I wholeheartedly advocate, and honestly believe need to be reintroduced into this country as soon as possible. The slavery we have here today is barbaric and immoral, and needs to be replaced with biblical slavery which as I mentioned earlier makes no distinction between who can or can't be made a slave. It simply allows for those who are already of a superior moral character to engage in slavery voluntarily to pay off debts they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Someone else has already gone into the finer points so I won't bother repeating it.

What you have done is to redefine slavery to make it bear no resemblance to the slavery practiced for millennia.

The essence of slavery is ownership of humans which includes stealing the volition of other humans and substituting the owner's will.

You're also practicing the logical fallacy of 'equivocation' as you confuse 'servitude' with 'involuntary servitude.' I understand the political position that 'everyone is enslaved by the rich who may exercise disproportionate control over the means of production. But calling varying degrees of economic/social stratification 'slavery' because some are richer than others is to change terminology to the point where communication is nullified.

Certainly the OT lays out SOME guidelines about slavery, but that hardly excuses the practice of allowing people to be OWNED by others, particularly when the children of slaves are doomed to be slaves with ZERO chance for legal improvement.

You appear to have missed a MAJOR point, that if we presume an infinitely good and powerful god, then why would this god make bad or immoral laws simply because mere human societies have 'always done it that way.'

A true god should be able to set standards that are above the norm. An example is when Jesus lectures that even lusting after another man's wife is adultery. Here, Jesus goes WAY beyond the norm and holds men to a higher standard. This is exactly the opposite of your argument and directly contradicts the example of OT scripture which allows slavery as defined in the OT.

The Bible makes it very clear that there are limits to what one can do with a slave, but the key distinction is whether one is an Israelite:

Leviticus 25:44-46:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Deuteronomy 24:7
If someone is caught kidnaping another Israelite, enslaving or selling the Israelite, then that kidnaper shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

We are talking about slavery as approved in the OT. I note you do not make your arguments based on the text of the OT

And the distinction between servants and slaves does not help your argument. When Noah curses canaan:

When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, in Genesis 9:24-27 he said,

Cursed be Canaan;
a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.

He also said,

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem;
and let Canaan be his servant.
May God enlarge Japheth,[d]
and let him dwell in the tents of Shem,
and let Canaan be his servant.

Once again the Bible endorses not only the idea of servitude, but decrees that, that status may be inherited. Secular society has moved far beyond this primitive idea that social/economic status should be inherited.

Using existing societal norms to form eternal laws demonstrates human based authorship, not divine.