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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 70 by bluethread]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Slave Theology Part Three: Pointing out the perfectly obvious and not caring to be understood.[/center]

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.

I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to say that I choose to see something someway?

YES, I know that I chose to see it this way or that.
I KNOW THAT already.

I don't have to be REMINDED!
Oh, and BY THE WAY.. I also know that I am entitled to my opinion.

I wonder what ELSE you think that I need to be reminded of?

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.

Yes, it was common practice to own slaves.
It was common practice to have a slave theology for the slave owners and the slaves themselves, lest they want to rebel.

It was a slave mentality that created a slave worshiping religion.
That's why the religion doesn't expressly FORBID slavery, but actually SUPPORTS slavery. I suppose, it was seen as very good business, back then.

And they had a religion to support the practice, too.
A slave religion, for slave owners.

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.

You don't want to clarify what you mean?
Ok, then.

Some debaters don't care to be understood.
I wonder if they imagine that helps their CASE?

___________

Questions:

• 1. Do you consider it important for you to be understood in here?
  2. Do you WANT to not be understood, as a goal?
  3. How convincing do you imaging yourself to be if you won't even answer people's questions?
  4. When you say that "If people do not submit to the rule of law, one has anarchy." for some reason, and I ask you questions about that, why do you think I'm being confused about the difference between submission and slavery, when YOU brought submission up in a discussion about slavery?
  5. Why DID you bring up anarchy and submissiveness in a discussion about the morality of slavery?
  6. Why do you think I need to be reminded that I think a certain way when I have just expressed the certain way that I am thinking?

___________

[JLB32168]

I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to say that I choose to see something someway?

I know why I would say something like that to a person. I would say it because it’s a rather diplomatic way of facilely dismissing the person’s comment – a comment that often seems mean-spirited and designed to cause upset.

Of course, one runs the chance of offending the person whose comment is being dismissed but people who make mean-spirited comments w/the intention of upsetting others aren’t supposed to like it when their comments don’t have the desired effect.

But I can’t speak for BT. [smile]

[bluethread]

As I said, that is how you choose to see it.

I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to say that I choose to see something someway?

YES, I know that I chose to see it this way or that.
I KNOW THAT already.

I don't have to be REMINDED!
Oh, and BY THE WAY.. I also know that I am entitled to my opinion.

I wonder what ELSE you think that I need to be reminded of?

Maybe you need to be reminded that I can not control how things look to you. Unless you say why it looks that way to you, there isn't much for me to do but acknowledge your viewpoint.

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.

Yes, it was common practice to own slaves.
It was common practice to have a slave theology for the slave owners and the slaves themselves, lest they want to rebel.

It was a slave mentality that created a slave worshiping religion.
That's why the religion doesn't expressly FORBID slavery, but actually SUPPORTS slavery. I suppose, it was seen as very good business, back then.

And they had a religion to support the practice, too.
A slave religion, for slave owners.

I did not say any of that. I merely pointed out that since slavery was a practice at the time, it was useful as an analogy. In fact, as I have stated in another thread, the Ohio experiment shows that slavery is not good business. I think it is a good alternative to a tax payer supported penal system and that is how I see it being used in HaTorah.

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.

You don't want to clarify what you mean?
Ok, then.

Some debaters don't care to be understood.
I wonder if they imagine that helps their CASE?

I did clarify what I meant. I was not speaking about what you want in the way if observance of the law. I was merely saying that equating submission to the law as slavery, a practice you do not approve of, is an anarchist view.

___________

Questions:

• 1. Do you consider it important for you to be understood in here?
  2. Do you WANT to not be understood, as a goal?
  3. How convincing do you imaging yourself to be if you won't even answer people's questions?

This is a rather peculiar set of questions. Of course, I would like to be understood, that is why I answer people's questions. However, I am not going to get sucked into speculating on a questioner's motives.

4. When you say that "If people do not submit to the rule of law, one has anarchy." for some reason, and I ask you questions about that, why do you think I'm being confused about the difference between submission and slavery, when YOU brought submission up in a discussion about slavery?
5. Why DID you bring up anarchy and submissiveness in a discussion about the morality of slavery?

I brought up submissive as an adjective to describe those who respect Torah law. It is you who characterized it as slave theology. That leads me to believe that you equate submission to the law as slavery. That is an anarchist view.

6. Why do you think I need to be reminded that I think a certain way when I have just expressed the certain way that I am thinking? [/list]

I was not reminding you of that, I was acknowledging that and verifying that I read it right.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 73 by bluethread]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Slave Theology Part Four: Reminding people of what they know perfectly well as if that was a valid debate point.[/center]

As I said, that is how you choose to see it.

I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to say that I choose to see something someway?

YES, I know that I chose to see it this way or that.
I KNOW THAT already.

I don't have to be REMINDED!
Oh, and BY THE WAY.. I also know that I am entitled to my opinion.

I wonder what ELSE you think that I need to be reminded of?

Maybe you need to be reminded that I can not control how things look to you. Unless you say why it looks that way to you, there isn't much for me to do but acknowledge your viewpoint.

MAYBE I DO?

Why on EARTH would you imagine that I would have to be reminded that you can not control how things look to me?

If you have a sound argument, I will accept it and move on. If your argument fails to do what it's supposed to so, I won't accept it.

That's it.

So far, I don't find your arguments convincing in any way.
IN MY OPINION, they fail miserably.

And I don't somehow, have to be REMINDED that you have no control over my opinions.

Yes, it was common practice to own slaves.
It was common practice to have a slave theology for the slave owners and the slaves themselves, lest they want to rebel.

It was a slave mentality that created a slave worshiping religion.
That's why the religion doesn't expressly FORBID slavery, but actually SUPPORTS slavery. I suppose, it was seen as very good business, back then.

And they had a religion to support the practice, too.
A slave religion, for slave owners.

I did not say any of that.

I KNOW.
I JUST DID.

Do you need to be reminded that when I write something that I am writing it and NOT YOU? If you have a problem with something that I wrote, fine. ASK for clarification and thou shalt receive.

Lately, you have been trying to figure out what I mean, taking a stab at it, and getting most of it HOPELESSLY wrong. Your reading comprehension doesn't serve you well, so I suggest that you ask more questions to find out what I actually MEAN.

What I wrote above was my OPINION about the theology of slavery that Abrahamic religions promote. NOT YOURS.
____________

FOR THE RECORD:

In my opinion, Abrahamic religions have a theology that promotes slavery.

____________


And I really do hope that you notice this time WHOSE opinion it is that I am portraying. HINT: It be mine.

I merely pointed out that since slavery was a practice at the time, it was useful as an analogy. In fact, as I have stated in another thread, the Ohio experiment shows that slavery is not good business. I think it is a good alternative to a tax payer supported penal system and that is how I see it being used in HaTorah.

And in MY wonderful opinion, the Bible doesn't say anything specifically NEGATIVE about slavery, but spells out the RULES of slavery.

In MY opinion, Abrahamic religions promote slavery by way of their theology.
And in MY opinion, slavery was wrong THEN and it is wrong NOW.
Slave promoting theology is WRONG then, and is WRONG now.

Those are MY opinions, by the way, in case you are wondering.

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 did clarify what I meant.

Well, maybe you are clear enough for YOURSELF, but not to Blastcat, that's why Blastcat asks for clarification.

How can we expect to debate honestly if I don't even know what it is you are TALKING ABOUT?

Are you here specifically to be MISUNDERSTOOD?


I don't think that YOU yourself needs the clarification but that Blastcat do.
( Blastcat might need lesson grammar too )

I was not speaking about what you want in the way if observance of the law. I was merely saying that equating submission to the law as slavery, a practice you do not approve of, is an anarchist view.

I am NOT equating obeying civic laws to slavery. Slavery in my mind should be illegal , and is illegal. In my opinion, slavery of any kind is HUGELY immoral and completely unjustified. I think that slavery is a CRIME of high order. And I also have the opinion that the Bible PROMOTES slavery, every chance that it gets.

To me, in my opinion, Abrahamic religions use slave theology.

___________

FOR THE RECORD:

1. I am not an anarchist.
2. I do not equate submission to the law with slavery.
3. I hold that Abrahamic religions support slavery.
___________

Questions:

• 1. Do you consider it important for you to be understood in here?
  2. Do you WANT to not be understood, as a goal?
  3. How convincing do you imaging yourself to be if you won't even answer people's questions?

This is a rather peculiar set of questions.

Isn't it, though?

Of course, I would like to be understood, that is why I answer people's questions.

Good.
I was hoping you'd say that.

However, I am not going to get sucked into speculating on a questioner's motives.

I don't know what you mean.
Could you elaborate on that part?

4. When you say that "If people do not submit to the rule of law, one has anarchy." for some reason, and I ask you questions about that, why do you think I'm being confused about the difference between submission and slavery, when YOU brought submission up in a discussion about slavery?
5. Why DID you bring up anarchy and submissiveness in a discussion about the morality of slavery?

I brought up submissive as an adjective to describe those who respect Torah law. It is you who characterized it as slave theology. That leads me to believe that you equate submission to the law as slavery. That is an anarchist view.

I wasn't talking about submission to the law, or anarchism, but about submission in general. I don't consider obeying laws SUBMISSION, but COOPERATION.

I do, however, consider that SLAVES must in fact, submit to their masters. That's kindof the deal with slavery. The mere fact that a Christian would use a word like "SUBMISSION" when describing a civic duty is indicative of a slave mentality supported by a slave theology.

6. Why do you think I need to be reminded that I think a certain way when I have just expressed the certain way that I am thinking? [/list]

I was not reminding you of that, I was acknowledging that and verifying that I read it right.

Do you imagine that I don't know that I think a certain way, when I just expressed it?
If you want to verify that you read something right , ASK ME.

You don't have to REMIND me of anything.
You can ASK.

If you aren't trying hard to be understood, then it's going to be harder to understand you. When I don't understand something, I ASK.

You will notice the many questions that I DO ask.
If you don't know what I mean, ( and I don't pretend to be the clearest writer in the universe ) simply ASK.

It gets REAL annoying to have to correct people TIME AND TIME AGAIN because they don't know well enough to ASK questions.

Hope that clarifies my position a bit.
If you have any questions, I suggest that you ASK THEM


Now.. onto more of MY questions:

____________

Questions:

• 1. Before we REMIND someone, should we not see if that person has FORGOT something, first?
  2. If we don't know what the other person means, should we not ASK them what they mean?
  3. How do you figure that a theology that spells out the rules for slavery doesn't promote slavery?
  4. What would a theological statement AGAINST slavery look like, in your opinion?
  5. Could you explain what you meant when you stated "However, I am not going to get sucked into speculating on a questioner's motives."?
  6. Do you consider obeying a law the same as submitting to a slaver?

____________

[JLB32168]

Bluethread, this wasn’t addressed to me but I have to respond.

Why on EARTH would you imagine that I would have to be reminded that you can not control how things look to me?

I’m not sure why that question is being asked. It isn’t germane to the discussion on whether or not God condones slavery today.

Lately, you have been trying to figure out what I mean, taking a stab at it, and getting most of it HOPELESSLY wrong.

Blastcat, BT strikes me as someone of no mean intelligence. I’ve experienced the same trouble that he has understanding you sometimes. The only common denominator is your wording of things. He and I might have reading comprehension issues as you suggest but the problem of lack of clarity might be on your end. I would try to be as clear as possible the first time.

In my opinion, Abrahamic religions have a theology that promotes slavery.

Okay – well I see Christianity as a religion that teaches equality, that there is no difference between slave and free. That doesn’t seem to be a promotion of slavery. If anything, it discourages it if you ask me, but you’re entitled to your opinion I suppose.

Well, maybe you are clear enough for YOURSELF, but not to Blastcat, that's why Blastcat asks for clarification.

I understood him quite clearly. If submission is slavery then submission to laws is slavery. If one thinks that submission is slavery then laws impose servitude and should be abolished. Abolition of law is anarchy. It seems you create special pleadings to excuse submission to laws from the classification as slavery – the one criterion being one is to God while the other is to the state. That is an illogical criterion. I’m not sure how anyone could misunderstand that.

To me, in my opinion, Abrahamic religions use slave theology.

Okay – well I subscribe to an Abrahamic religion and have never felt like I’m a slave so I disagree with your opinion.

I wasn't talking about submission to the law, or anarchism, but about submission in general. I don't consider obeying laws SUBMISSION, but COOPERATION.

Okay – well submission to God’s law is also cooperation by my standard since following the precepts of “love your neighbor as yourself� would eliminate most of society’s ills. I venture a guess you’ll call it “slavery� for some arbitrary reason. It seems to me that Bluethread is only highlighting what he sees as the illogical application of a double standard through his use of the anarchy analogy. He’ll clarify if I’ve erred.

The rest of your post seems a lot more of a personal discussion of people’s character rather than the subject of condoning slavery.

[Zzyzx]

.

Okay – well I see Christianity as a religion that teaches equality, that there is no difference between slave and free.

How much further from reality can a religion get than to teach that there is no difference between slave and free?

Okay – well I subscribe to an Abrahamic religion and have never felt like I’m a slave so I disagree with your opinion.

It is not surprising that someone whose religion teaches that there is no difference between slave and free to be unprepared to make that distinction.

[JLB32168]

How much further from reality can a religion get than to teach that there is no difference between slave and free?

I suppose it could command people to liberate their slaves but why should it?
Is slavery wrong – or do you just prefer not to be a slave and assume that others, slaves for example, think the same way?

It is not surprising that someone whose religion teaches that there is no difference between slave and free to be unprepared to make that distinction.

Exactly what difference is there between the two – other than one may be owned by someone else? Is that wrong?

[Clownboat]

I understood him quite clearly. If submission is slavery then submission to laws is slavery.

I'm curious, why would submission be slavery?

sub·mis·sion
səbˈmiSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person

slav·er·y
ˈsl�v(ə)rē/
noun
the state of being a slave.
"thousands had been sold into slavery"
synonyms: bondage, enslavement, servitude, thralldom, thrall, serfdom, vassalage
"thousands were sold into slavery"
the practice or system of owning slaves.

I can see how the definitions might have confused you, but now that you see them one after the other, can you see how submission and slavery are different concepts?

Try this example out:
If taxes were bacon, then I would love taxes.
Unfortunately, taxes are not bacon, thus my 'if' scenario is nonsensical, like an argument that slavery is submission.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 77 by JLB32168]


[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Not accepting the difference between freedom and slavery, while attempting to show us the difference.
Part One[/center]

It is not surprising that someone whose religion teaches that there is no difference between slave and free to be unprepared to make that distinction.

Exactly what difference is there between the two – other than one may be owned by someone else? Is that wrong?

You don't seem to notice the difference between being FREE and having a job, and being a SLAVE and having a job.

_____________

Questions:

• 1. In your opinion, is everyone who works for another person a slave?
  2. Do you consider everyone a slave, or are there free people?
  3. Could you describe a free person?
  4. Could you describe how someone who does not accept the difference between a free person and a slave can coherently DISCUSS the differences?
  5. Do you consider having a job being "owned"?

_____________

[JLB32168]

I can see how the definitions might have confused you, but now that you see them one after the other, can you see how submission and slavery are different concepts?

Children submit to their parents (when reasonable.) Are children slaves?

You don't seem to notice the difference between being FREE and having a job, and being a SLAVE and having a job.

Oh I know the difference. I asked you why the latter was wrong three millennia ago.