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?

[JehovahsWitness]

.. you're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Seems the person in question is using the term "slave" in a similar fashion to Dylan using the term "servant" in his song.

When Bob Dylan is brought into the topic is when it becomes scary

You know Bob got that from Jesus right?

(I wonder how many modern pop songs Jesus has been quoted in ...)

[Clownboat]

Seems the person in question is using the term "slave" in a similar fashion to Dylan using the term "servant" in his song.

This may be true, but it still diminishes what the real victims went through.

Imagine the insult if this poster approached a person that is actually owned by another human, looks them in the eye and says, "I'm a slave too brother". "Now enjoy your day serving your master, I'm off to the beach".

It's belittling to pretend to be the property of another when you can only show that you are the said property.. for 'show'.

Another take...
Imagine claiming to be a 'holocaust survivor for Christ'. A person can try to justify why they consider themselves this, but its a smack in the face to those that actually suffered through this monstrosity.

Said user is not actually a real slave and is only pretending to be for religious reasons. Thinking you are owned by someone or something is not the same as actually being owned.

[bluethread]

Q: Would you like to be someone else's slave? To be someone else's property? To be sold or bought as merchandise? To be passed on as inheritance? (Yes/No question)

No, but I am not saying that I would hold slaves. I would not like to be financially obligated in any way and have that obligation bought and sold as property, and be passed down as an inheritance. However, I do not think I have the right to outlaw various financial arrangments outright, simply because I would not engage in them myself.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]

You know Bob got that from Jesus right?

One reason why I don't like Bobbie

(I wonder how many modern pop songs Jesus has been quoted in ...)

Similarly, a long time ago I heard a pop musician icon claim there were more references to devil in songs than angels.

[JehovahsWitness]

(I wonder how many modern pop songs Jesus has been quoted in ...)

Similarly, a long time ago I heard a pop musician icon claim there were more references to devil in songs than angels.

Of that I have NO doubt! But we're hijacking... back to the scheduled programs...

[alexxcJRO]

Q: Would you like to be someone else's slave? To be someone else's property? To be sold or bought as merchandise? To be passed on as inheritance? (Yes/No question)

No, but I am not saying that I would hold slaves. I would not like to be financially obligated in any way and have that obligation bought and sold as property, and be passed down as an inheritance. However, I do not think I have the right to outlaw various financial arrangments outright, simply because I would not engage in them myself.

Yet your still defending such abhorrent practices.

Being complicit and not stopping such abhorrent things when one can does not excuse one from responsibility and being guilty.

The irony is that God saved the Israelites from the Gentiles who were keeping them slaves and then told them several laws on how to keep the Gentiles slaves.

God disrupted the financial arrangements of the Egyptians.

God: Making pyramids with Israelites as slaves? No more.

Few time passes by...

God: Go and keep the Gentiles as slaves? I am no more displeased by such practices, no.

I am changing like the weather. I am capricious and malevolent.

The Israelites were kept as slaves. They were displeased and considered this abhorent.

And then they go and do the thing they were complaining about.

Such hypocrisy. Such illogical nonsense.

Q: Soyonara golden rule, huh?

Q: Who can believe such nonsense? Who can defend such actions and not smell the foul stench of nonsense rotting their brain?

Q: Why are you defending, worshiping a capricious, malevolent bully?:-s

[Tcg]

Q: Why are you defending, worshiping a capricious, malevolent bully?:-s

There has to be a payoff. It's hard to imagine this can't be related to some expectation of an imaginary afterlife. In addition, this defense/worship is a result of the belief that this big bad god won't treat you in the here and now the way it will treat those who are brave enough to point out the evil biblegod practices.

It boils down to, keep your mouth shut about the horrors biblegod indorses and practices, and it'll give you a pass. It's like the elementary school kids who befriend the school's biggest bully so they don't have to worry about that bully bullying them.

So, worship the bully god and it won't treat you the way it recommends it's non-supporters be treated. You also get the privilege of believing in the mythological idea of an afterlife for those who support it's bullying ways.

[bluethread]

Q: Would you like to be someone else's slave? To be someone else's property? To be sold or bought as merchandise? To be passed on as inheritance? (Yes/No question)

No, but I am not saying that I would hold slaves. I would not like to be financially obligated in any way and have that obligation bought and sold as property, and be passed down as an inheritance. However, I do not think I have the right to outlaw various financial arrangments outright, simply because I would not engage in them myself.

Yet your still defending such abhorrent practices.

No, I am enquiring as to how one knows that such practices are abhorrent and whether there are forms of those practices that might not be abhorrent.

Being complicit and not stopping such abhorrent things when one can does not excuse one from responsibility and being guilty.

Again, we need to be clear regarding which practices we are talking about in specific.

The irony is that God saved the Israelites from the Gentiles who were keeping them slaves and then told them several laws on how to keep the Gentiles slaves.

God disrupted the financial arrangements of the Egyptians.

God: Making pyramids with Israelites as slaves? No more.

It is only irony, if one holds to liberation theology. I do not. Adonai redeemed Israel from Egypt. He did not set them loose. Israel is contractually bound to Adonai. They do not make bricks for the Egyptians anymore. However, they are bondservants of Adonai as His representatives to the nations.

Few time passes by...

God: Go and keep the Gentiles as slaves? I am no more displeased by such practices, no.

I am changing like the weather. I am capricious and malevolent.

The Israelites were kept as slaves. They were displeased and considered this abhorent.

And then they go and do the thing they were complaining about.

Such hypocrisy. Such illogical nonsense.

I disagree. Adonai told Israel, (Lev. 19:34) "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt". The only difference was with regard to those who did not wish to become citizens, or abide by the law of the land.

Q: Soyonara golden rule, huh?

The golden rule does not say, stop others from doing what you would not do yourself. In fact, if one were to strictly apply the golden rule as you are using it in that case, that would mean that one would work to outlaw all debt, if one did not wish to be in debt oneself.

Q: Who can believe such nonsense? Who can defend such actions and not smell the foul stench of nonsense rotting their brain?

Q: Why are you defending, worshiping a capricious, malevolent bully?:-s

I gather that these are rhetorical questions, since you stated them in a biased fashion and have not provided adequate justification.

[alexxcJRO]

No, I am enquiring as to how one knows that such practices are abhorrent and whether there are forms of those practices that might not be abhorrent. Again, we need to be clear regarding which practices we are talking about in specific.

I was talking about being someones property. Being sold or bought as merchandise. Being passed on as inheritance.

Q: Are the three practices from above abhorrent?(Yes/No question)

It is only irony, if one holds to liberation theology. I do not. Adonai redeemed Israel from Egypt. He did not set them loose. Israel is contractually bound to Adonai. They do not make bricks for the Egyptians anymore. However, they are bondservants of Adonai as His representatives to the nations
I disagree. Adonai told Israel, (Lev. 19:34) "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt". The only difference was with regard to those who did not wish to become citizens, or abide by the law of the land.

Irrelevant nonsense.

Q: God did not like it that the Israelites were kept as slaves, no?

Q: If the Israelites were displeased that were kept as slaves why did they start keeping slaves? Why were they hypocrites?

Q: Why did God put laws that would lead to the breaking of the Golden Rule?

Q: Why did God not forbid keeping humans as property, sold or bought them as merchandise, passing them as inheritance? Why he did not include You shall not own another human being in the list of commandments, huh?

The golden rule does not say, stop others from doing what you would not do yourself. In fact, if one were to strictly apply the golden rule as you are using it in that case, that would mean that one would work to outlaw all debt, if one did not wish to be in debt oneself.

Golden rule is clear:

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Golden rule in our case:
One should not own another human being if he does not like to be own by another human being

So if the Israelites did not liked to be owned by other humans(Egyptians) they should not have owned other humans.
It is clear as day that they broke the Golden Rule.

I gather that these are rhetorical questions, since you stated them in a biased fashion and have not provided adequate justification.

The second it is not. Dont dodge dear sir.

Please answer:
Q: Why are you defending, worshiping a capricious, malevolent, genocidal, infanticidal bully? Why are you defending a being that inflicts countless suffering, pain and death to innocents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals)

[Bust Nak]

Wait, how exactly did those two passage falsify the claim that non-Hebrew slaves are slaves for life?

please click on the "quote" button next time so I can see what you're referring to.

You can't remember what you said a mere 18 hours ago? 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.