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?

[Clownboat]

Interesting interpretation, but hardly compelling without any evidence. Slavery was (and still is!) a part of life. As I pointed out before, regulating it better than the neighboring communities allows those who are already enslaved a way out of their situation. A win/win.

You make it sound like slavery should be celebrated as some liberating thing.
In your opinion, would the world be better off with more slaves or less slaves?

Slavery is "bad" for those who don't need to be enslaved, while it is quite "good" when one is in dire need of food, clothing, employment, etc.

Are you really arguing that if someone direly needs food, clothing or employment, they should seek out becoming the property of another human? Why not focus on employment for example? Why does being owned by another even enter into the equation?

Slavery as outlined in the Mosaic law would be a percieved good in the US right now as it allows people who have a debt that is impossible to pay, no job, and no place to live the opportunity to live in a nice house, food, a job and their debt is erased immediately.

Really? Better to be the property of another than filing for bankruptcy for example? Your going to need to do better I'm afraid for this to be convincing.

They recieve on the job training and when their term is up, they have the opportunity to remain at their employer's or move on, in some cases with some money as well. Where else are they going to get a deal like that nowadays?

Getting a job while not being owned by another human!

I'm not following your argument here. Slavery is still universal today. The whole world is enslaved to debt enslavement. Look at how many people are desperate to qualify to become debt slaves. There are people who would kill for a loan; they're addicted to slavery. They love it.

Is this your argument? Some people love being slaves to debt, therefore owning other humans as your property is moral?

This doesn't suggest the authorship or non authorship of a universal god. It suggests simple obvious lessond, which if one is able to learn will allow them to avoid this nonsense.

I disagree personally. It certainly suggests tribal thinking and not some universal, unchanging god authorship. ONLY people that are already believers in this god concept believe the Bible to be authored by a god. Therefore, you are forced to defend this type of thinking.

[Bust Nak]

I provided you with two pieces of documentation proving the falsity of those claims.

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

[bluethread]

It is not of prime importance that slavery as advocated in the Bible is 'race' based or nationality based. in any event the tribalism of the 'Old Testament' is clear. Distinctions were made based on whether or not one belonged to the 'correct' tribe. Thus these passages reflect a bias that today we consider immoral. This is proof those scriptures are not from some eternal, unchanging 'god' of all humanity. The scriptures are from fallible men seeking to justify their tribe and an evil (slavery) as long as it is practiced only against outsiders.

So, statements being considered immoral by you and that mouse in your pocket is proof that they are man made? How does that work? What you call "tribalism" is what has historically been called "citizenship". Citizenship indicates an acceptance of the laws and authority of a given nation, and thus it has it's privileges. I know that this is a controversial concept among some people these days. However, without acceptance of the rule of law a nation state ceases to exist. That is why the Constitution of these United States still permit the enslavement of felons.


Willum Wrote:

There is only ONE important form of slavery:
When one person OWNS another.
That you defend it in any context is difficult to handle.
If there is one thing history has shown, is that mankind does not prosper under slavery.

That is something to do with the free-will crux.

Well, we are talking about an economic arrangement, the morality of that arrangement is subject to the standards of a given society. So, in order to properly evaluate the morality of owning another human being, one would have to be clear regarding what constitutes ownership in the society under consideration. Then, one could compare that to a given moral standard to determine it's moral status.

Regarding yours statement about history, you are incorrect. For most of history, in almost every civilization, there has been slavery. In fact, some of the most prosperous civilizations have not only had legal forms of slavery, but have been built on the institution of slavery. Admittedly, once there are an overwhelming number of slaves in a given society, it becomes unstable and at risk. However, that is true with nearly every economic arrangement. For any economy to work there must at least be a benign acceptance of the economic structure.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by bluethread]

When Rome turned its citizens into slaves, its culture enervated, and it fell soon after.

Well, I really don't want to discuss the benefits and implications of slavery, it is enough that you, and your beliefs advocate so apologetically for it.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 23 by bluethread]

When Rome turned its citizens into slaves, its culture enervated, and it fell soon after.

Well, I really don't want to discuss the benefits and implications of slavery, it is enough that you, and your beliefs advocate so apologetically for it.

As I said, once there are an overwhelming number of slaves in a given society, it becomes unstable and at risk. That is what happened to the Roman empire, but only after some 1000 years. That said, I am just examining the concept, which is what we do around here. If you do not wish to discuss the topic, then don't. However, simply demagoguing the issue is not very productive.

[Tcg]

Well, I really don't want to discuss the benefits and implications of slavery, it is enough that you, and your beliefs advocate so apologetically for it.

Indeed. I am astonished at the number of Christians who argue that owning other humans is a great thing. Oddly enough, not a single one has been willing to sell me their children so that I can give them the wonderful life their parents claim slavery is. I wonder why that is?

[bluethread]

Well, I really don't want to discuss the benefits and implications of slavery, it is enough that you, and your beliefs advocate so apologetically for it.

Indeed. I am astonished at the number of Christians who argue that owning other humans is a great thing. Oddly enough, not a single one has been willing to sell me their children so that I can give them the wonderful life their parents claim slavery is. I wonder why that is?

I never said it was a great thing. In fact, I believe, for various reasons, that it is counterproductive. However, that does not mean that it is not an issue worthy of discussion.

[shnarkle]

Interesting interpretation, but hardly compelling without any evidence. Slavery was (and still is!) a part of life. As I pointed out before, regulating it better than the neighboring communities allows those who are already enslaved a way out of their situation. A win/win.

You make it sound like slavery should be celebrated as some liberating thing.
In your opinion, would the world be better off with more slaves or less slaves?

When one goes from a life of poverty and even abuse to one of respect with an immediate improvement to a higher standard of living, then they have been liberated from poverty and abuse. So yes, I would celebrate that. I'm not hung up on labels though.

Slavery is "bad" for those who don't need to be enslaved, while it is quite "good" when one is in dire need of food, clothing, employment, etc.

Are you really arguing that if someone direly needs food, clothing or employment, they should seek out becoming the property of another human?

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that were it an option, many of those who can't find employment would take it in a heartbeat. Why? Because they would immediately be employed.

Why not focus on employment for example?

Because I see no reason not to focus on employment. That is the focus. Slavery is all about employment. Asking rhetorical questions goes nowhere to an honest understanding of the issues. I say rhetorical because it is you who isn't focusing on employment, but instead is obsessed with this idea of being owned. Then again, it isn't surprising when one is owned by an opposing viewpoint.

Why does being owned by another even enter into the equation?

My point exactly!!!! It doesn't need to enter into the equation at all. Just pretend it isn't an issue and what you'll find is that it is no different than instantly having a new source of employment with on the job training, a new place to live which you don't even have to pay for, no bills, no expenses, and a higher standard of living.

Slavery as outlined in the Mosaic law would be a percieved good in the US right now as it allows people who have a debt that is impossible to pay, no job, and no place to live the opportunity to live in a nice house, food, a job and their debt is erased immediately.

Really? Better to be the property of another than filing for bankruptcy for example?

Of course, especially if one is concerned with their reputation. I admit that nowadays there are plenty of people who would rather just ignore the debts they owe to others and pretend that they aren't some sort of low life who couldn't care less that the people they borrowed money from will never see any of it returned to them. But for people who believe that taking someone else's money and breaking their word is not only wrong, but something to be ashamed of, the opportunity to repay their creditors is literally a godsend. They can now repay them and regain a sense of self worth that allows them a place in their community. Obviously this isn't the type of community we live in anymore. I won't argue with you there.

Your going to need to do better I'm afraid for this to be convincing.

Well, at least you're honest about your fears, but there really is no need to do better. It's really just about making the choice available. Who needs to be convinced that we need choices?

They recieve on the job training and when their term is up, they have the opportunity to remain at their employer's or move on, in some cases with some money as well. Where else are they going to get a deal like that nowadays?

Getting a job while not being owned by another human!

False Dichotomy: You've not grasped the argument. I'm not suggesting that those who can get a job using traditional means opt for becoming a slave. However, there may be those who would opt for it when the benefits outweigh their prejudice against slavery. Let's take a hypothetical example(since you feel you need convincing)

Let's imagine that you work in Taco Bell, and your minimum wage job isn't really allowing you to live the life you've always dreamed of. That beat up old Ford Pinto is really starting to smoke and it isn't helping you with the ladies. Your studio apartment, while providing more than enough space to accommodate your sofa sleeper, also known as your sleeping bag, and your folding chair; just isn't cutting it anymore. A bigger place with actual furniture is something you've been dreaming about for far too long, but that dream is never going to happen until you pay off all of your college student loan debt. Given that you can't do both while slaving (and I do mean slaving) over a vat of refried beans, the option to have your debt erased IMMEDIATLY might not sound like such a bad idea, especially when it comes with a significant improvement to your standard of living.

Slavery under the regulations of the Mosaic law would allow you to escape that sad excuse of a life to live at the exact same standard of living as the person you enter into that contract with to be their slave. If the nomenclature bothers you, there's nothing to prevent us from changing it to a "debt consolidation/apprenticeship program". Other than this idea of being owned, there's really no effective difference.

I'm not following your argument here. Slavery is still universal today. The whole world is enslaved to debt enslavement. Look at how many people are desperate to qualify to become debt slaves. There are people who would kill for a loan; they're addicted to slavery. They love it.

Is this your argument? Some people love being slaves to debt, therefore owning other humans as your property is moral?

No. That's not my argument at all.

This doesn't suggest the authorship or non authorship of a universal god. It suggests simple obvious lessons, which if one is able to learn will allow them to avoid this nonsense.

I disagree personally. It certainly suggests tribal thinking...

Perhaps to your personal way of thinking. It needn't be tribal at all.

and not some universal, unchanging god authorship. ONLY people that are already believers in this god concept believe the Bible to be authored by a god. Therefore, you are forced to defend this type of thinking.

Irrelevant and a non sequitur. It doesn't matter who authored the bible at all. No one is forcing me to defend slavery. In point of fact, I'm not defending all forms of slvaery, and not necessarily all aspects of biblical slavery. However, the fundamental aspects were not only a necessity because of the world in which they lived, but a benefit. The fictional world of the bible is not all that different from the world today. I provided a real world example to show just how beneficial it could be today as well.

However, in a way I do feel compelled to defend this "type of thinking" because there really is no reason to forbid us from having this option. There is nothing immoral about freely entering into contractual agreements. When one factors in the fact that unemployment is at depression levels, and our sagging economy is getting ready to implode, to discount it because of some prejudice against a work of fiction isn't much of an argument.

[Danmark]

It is not of prime importance that slavery as advocated in the Bible is 'race' based or nationality based. in any event the tribalism of the 'Old Testament' is clear. Distinctions were made based on whether or not one belonged to the 'correct' tribe. Thus these passages reflect a bias that today we consider immoral. This is proof those scriptures are not from some eternal, unchanging 'god' of all humanity. The scriptures are from fallible men seeking to justify their tribe and an evil (slavery) as long as it is practiced only against outsiders.

So, statements being considered immoral by you and that mouse in your pocket is proof that they are man made? How does that work? What you call "tribalism" is what has historically been called "citizenship". Citizenship indicates an acceptance of the laws and authority of a given nation, and thus it has it's privileges. I know that this is a controversial concept among some people these days. However, without acceptance of the rule of law a nation state ceases to exist. That is why the Constitution of these United States still permit the enslavement of felons.

I have a hard time understanding how ANYone fails to understand this.
1st, the statements are made by Old Testament writers [or 'God' if you believe religious claims.
2d This so called 'god' decreed that slavery is wrong, so wrong that it should not be practiced against Jews.
3d Even tho' it is an admitted evil, the Bible says it is OK to perpetrate against people Jesus later calls your 'neighbor.'

4th, This proves 'god' in the OT doesn't give a fig about humans, just Jews.
5th, Obviously this comes from a man made 'god,' invented to justify Jewish behavior, that is otherwise condemned.
6th, The adoption of slavery simply follows human practice of the time of the OT. It is not some eternal or absolute that a true god would decree.

6th, that this is all true is reflected in the apologists' effort to justify the immoral practice of slavery, of treating another human like an animal.

One has to laugh at the desperation of the apologist who even tries to justify slavery in order to support such obvious evil nonsense.

[shnarkle]

'god' decreed that slavery is wrong, so wrong that it should not be practiced against Jews.

He doesn't say it's wrong or evil. He says to be mindful of how one treats their slaves, to treat them with dignity. Jewish slavery is clearly allowed and outlined in the Mosaic law. Jewish adoption of slavery in many ways does not follow the practices and customs of their neighboring communities.

the immoral practice of slavery, of treating another human like an animal.

False Equivalence. Biblical slavery repeatedly points out the dignity of human beings and while not inventing slavery works within the parameters of their neighbors and regulates it in such a way as to insure human dignity be protected.

One has to laugh at the desperation of the apologist who even tries to justify slavery in order to support such obvious evil nonsense.

Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule