Does God condone slavery TODAY?

[Zzyzx]

.
Does God condone slavery TODAY?

I have encountered nothing in the Bible indicating that God condemns or even discourages the practice of slavery. Even “don't return escaped slaves� or “don't beat them to death: accept the practice of slavery.

In today's world slavery exists. Most enlightened / educated / informed people seem to oppose the practice. However, God does not seem to have anything to say on the matter.

Has God changed his mind? If so, how has that been made known?

[JLB32168]

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Okay – so is that a universal command? Are we not supposed to throw people in jail? After all, you wouldn’t want to be thrown in jail, would you?
Would you throw an adult child who didn’t want to follow your rules out of your house?

I venture a guess that the answer is “Yes, I own the house; he’s following my rules.� If that were your answer, you’d not be following the Golden Rule because you certainly wouldn’t want to be thrown out of the house.

Or the command isn’t meant to be taken universally/unconditionally, or do you have a better interpretation? No, I don’t actually think you’ll answer the question, but you might surprise me.

[Clownboat]

Clearly JLB mentions an adult that abuses alcohol. This adult happens to live with their parents in JLB's hypothetical scenario (ask yourself why he likes hypotheticals so much) and thinks he is clever by pointing out that the parents wouldn't want to get thrown out, so they should not throw out their drug abusing children.

I’m not sure why this supposed to be clever but you do so I’ll accept it.

If I abused drugs and caused harm to others in my home, I would remove myself from my home and seek treatment.

Wonderful.

If your child doesn’t think s/he has a problem what are you going to do?
Presumably you’d throw him/her out regardless. You wouldn’t want someone to throw you out on your ear; therefore, you are not following the Golden Rule.
You’re doing to someone what you wouldn’t want done to you; you’re denying him/her shelter – or that’s your logic.

You’re the only one who’s dodging here. Bringing this all back to slavery – why is “You wouldn’t want to be enslaved by someone� have to do with the morality of slavery?

You apparently are not taking the needed time to read what I typed for the readers. In the make believe, pretend, hypothetical scenario you dreamed up to attempt whatever it is you were attempting, I in fact would treat the child like I would treat myself. You then go on to make presumptions about me so you can pretend in your own mind that I wouldn't follow the golden rule in this scenario.

Pointing this out shows that I did not dodge your question, but that I answered it twice now in fact.

Either way, your 'golden rule' argument has no bearing on the fact that the people that wrote the Bible did not seem to have any issue with human slavery.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 60 by bluethread]

The real critique is, why didn't Paul and the earliest Christians set all their energy on abolishing slavery--forget spreading the gospel; forget telling Gentiles to stop worshiping idols, to cease from temple prostitution. Why did they not spend 100% of their energy on being a 1st c. abolition movement?

Because they were not called to preach liberation theology. They were called to follow the commandment to be a light to the gentile, by living a Torah submissive life, in accordance with Yeshua's teachings.

It sounds more like "slavery theology" to me.
Submissive life?

Right.. submissive, alright.
Like a slave.

[Clownboat]

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Okay – so is that a universal command? Are we not supposed to throw people in jail? After all, you wouldn’t want to be thrown in jail, would you?
Would you throw an adult child who didn’t want to follow your rules out of your house?

I venture a guess that the answer is “Yes, I own the house; he’s following my rules.� If that were your answer, you’d not be following the Golden Rule because you certainly wouldn’t want to be thrown out of the house.

Or the command isn’t meant to be taken universally/unconditionally, or do you have a better interpretation? No, I don’t actually think you’ll answer the question, but you might surprise me.

JLB, the rule is not universal.
Psychopaths are exceptions for obvious reasons (issues with empathy and such).

Regardless, I would encourage you and others to abide by it as much as possible and as much as is reasonable.

For example, consider slavery. Would you want to be the property of another person?
Just think about this scenario. Don't immediately try to imagine some pretend, hypothetical outlandish scenario. Instead, just imagine being owned by another person. Sound lovely?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 61 by JLB32168]


[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
My interpretation of a Bible verse is the only interpretation available.
Part One[/center]

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Okay – so is that a universal command?

I have no idea.. I'm not the Christian here.
It's just a quote from the Bible.

It's in need of interpretation.

Are we not supposed to throw people in jail?

No, we are NOT "supposed" to throw people in jail.
We are SUPPOSED to protect one another from dangerous people.

Jail is one method of doing that.
I think it's a horrific method.

After all, you wouldn’t want to be thrown in jail, would you?

I do NOT want to be thrown in jail. That is correct.
I find the very idea horrific.

Would you throw an adult child who didn’t want to follow your rules out of your house?

I have no idea what person or circumstance you are referring to.
I suppose that living with me in my house might include certain conditions. I want to feel safe in my own house, for example. I think I have that right.

I venture a guess that the answer is “Yes, I own the house; he’s following my rules.� If that were your answer, you’d not be following the Golden Rule because you certainly wouldn’t want to be thrown out of the house.

Your guess was a good one.
My house, my rules.

If I didn't want to be thrown out of the house, I would arrange myself to follow the conditions of the house. Breaking the "rules" of the house would mean that I do NOT want to continue living there.

Or the command isn’t meant to be taken universally/unconditionally, or do you have a better interpretation?

Here is my answer.. surprise, surprise !!

As a moral standard, the Golden Rule is flawed, so I can't think that it has to be followed universally/unconditionally.

I don't pretend that my interpretation is the best as some Christians do in here too much of the time. That's not my game. I also do not pretend to know what the Bible authors truly meant. The meaning of the text has to be interpreted by each and every one of us, and that, in a subjective manner.

Those opinions are not facts.
Interpretations of texts can take and do take many forms.

I think the the biblical rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you� (Matt. 7:12) has been surpassed by secular moral thinking. I think the Golden Rule is SERIOUSLY flawed.

No, I don’t actually think you’ll answer the question, but you might surprise me.

I wonder why you would think that?

I keep telling people that I will try my very BEST to answer each and every question that my opponent bothers to ask of me.


_____________

Questions:

• 
  1. Does it surprise you to think that a non-believer might want to engage in HONEST debate by answering hard questions?
  2. Should Bible commands like "Do unto others" be interpreted?
  3. How does one figure out what is a "conditional" command, and what is a NON-conditional command, in the Bible?
  4. Do you consider Blastcat to be a dishonest debater who doesn't answer questions? If so, may I ask WHY you think so?

_____________

[bluethread]

It sounds more like "slavery theology" to me.
Submissive life?

Right.. submissive, alright.
Like a slave.

That is how you choose to see it, but to be fair Yeshua uses a similar analogy. In my view, anarchy is not a admirable principle.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 66 by bluethread]

That is how you choose to see it, but to be fair Yeshua uses a similar analogy.

I don't understand what you mean by "Yeshua uses a similar analogy".
Could you clarify?

In my view, anarchy is not a admirable principle.

I don't know where you got anarchy from what I wrote.
Could you clarify?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 66 by bluethread]

That is how you choose to see it, but to be fair Yeshua uses a similar analogy.

I don't understand what you mean by "Yeshua uses a similar analogy".
Could you clarify?

Mt. 20:26 'Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, '

Mt. 23:11 "The greatest among you will be your servant. "

In my view, anarchy is not a admirable principle.

I don't know where you got anarchy from what I wrote.
Could you clarify?

If people do not submit to the rule of law, one has anarchy.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 68 by bluethread]




[center]
Slave theology
Part two.[/center]

That is how you choose to see it, but to be fair Yeshua uses a similar analogy.

I don't understand what you mean by "Yeshua uses a similar analogy".
Could you clarify?

Mt. 20:26 'Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, '

Mt. 23:11 "The greatest among you will be your servant. "

Thank you for that.

It sounds like slave theology to me.
They really liked their slaves back then, didn't they?

In my view, anarchy is not a admirable principle.

I don't know where you got anarchy from what I wrote.
Could you clarify?

If people do not submit to the rule of law, one has anarchy.

Are you saying that people who submit to laws are slaves?
Do you think that I want to promote anarchy or not obeying laws?

Could you clarify?

[bluethread]

Mt. 20:26 'Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, '

Mt. 23:11 "The greatest among you will be your servant. "

Thank you for that.

It sounds like slave theology to me.
They really liked their slaves back then, didn't they?

As I said, that is how you choose to see it. One generally uses common practice when one is making an analogy, and slavery was common practice. I think He would have stated it a bit differently, if He were saying it in a modern western society.

If people do not submit to the rule of law, one has anarchy.

Are you saying that people who submit to laws are slaves?
Do you think that I want to promote anarchy or not obeying laws?

Could you clarify?

I am not going to speak to what you want, but you seem to be equating submissiveness to slavery.