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?

[shnarkle]

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?

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

[bluethread]

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.

Ok, so we are talking specifically about the 'ebed and the 'amah, as tthey are referred to in HaTorah.

2d This so called 'god' decreed that slavery is wrong, so wrong that it should not be practiced against Jews.

Sorry, I missed that decree. I see no general prohibition. In fact, the Scriptures teach that Israelis are to be released in the year of Yovel. Why would it say that, if there is no one to release?

3d Even tho' it is an admitted evil, the Bible says it is OK to perpetrate against people Jesus later calls your 'neighbor.'

You have not established that the 'ebed and the 'amah were not in accordance with Adonai's ways. In fact, the rules regarding them are in HaTorah. You just quoted part of them. Also, if you are talking about the "good Samaritan", the Samaritans are Israelis. They were just despised by the Pharisees and Sadducees. By the way Yeshua did not call them my neighbor, He ASKED which one was the neighbor to the man who was robbed.

4th, This proves 'god' in the OT doesn't give a fig about humans, just Jews.

Not true. As HaTorah says, (Lev. 19:33-34) "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 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: I am Adonai Elohim." There are some advantages of citizenship, however with those few exceptions, they are treated the same.

5th, Obviously this comes from a man made 'god,' invented to justify Jewish behavior, that is otherwise condemned.

So, do you think citizenship is just an excuse to treat other people badly?

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.

There are many things that are not absolute, i.e. the commands regarding the feists, the laws regarding what can or can not be eaten. It does not follow that a deity must only decree absolutes.

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.

This is circular reasoning, i.e. slavery is wrong because people try to justify the "immoral practice". Also, as I have pointed out, HaTorah commands that humans not be treated like animals.

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

As I have said before, I do find the practice to be counterproductive. However, limiting one's right to contract and redress, and a means to assure acceptance of civil authority is also counterproductive. So, in extreme cases, it becomes a bit of a balancing act.

[Danmark]

'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.

This is hilariously obtuse. Obviously 'God' thinks slavery is wrong because he decrees it may not be practiced against Jews. The bible makes it clear there is one rule for Hebrews, another for non Hebrews:

“If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: 40 he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are my servants,[e] whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. "

Thus the Hebrews may not own Hebrew slaves; however, for non Hebrews it is a very different story:

44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.

Once again the desire to justify the fairness and goodness of 'God' is refuted by the very words of that alleged 'God.' Why in the world would non Jews accept such an obvious bigot as a God?

[bluethread]

Once again the desire to justify the fairness and goodness of 'God' is refuted by the very words of that alleged 'God.' Why in the world would non Jews accept such an obvious bigot as a God?

If they did then they would be citizens and would be released when all of the other Israelites are. Or they could run away and be free in another country, where they will then have to deal with all of the rules in that country.

[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.

This is hilariously obtuse. Obviously 'God' thinks slavery is wrong because he decrees it may not be practiced against Jews. The bible makes it clear there is one rule for Hebrews, another for non Hebrews:

“If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: 40 he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are my servants,[e] whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. "

Thus the Hebrews may not own Hebrew slaves; however, for non Hebrews it is a very different story:

44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.

Once again the desire to justify the fairness and goodness of 'God' is refuted by the very words of that alleged 'God.' Why in the world would non Jews accept such an obvious bigot as a God?

I'm really glad you posted those quotes because the thing that really jumps out at me is the fact that Israel can buy slaves from their non Jewish neighbors who would most likely be slaves their entire lives, and then when their term is up, they're free. Free to return from whence they came, and possibly become slaves again, or remain and assimilate into a group that now views them as above ever being a slave again.

The beauty of it is truly sublime.

[Danmark]

I'm really glad you posted those quotes because the thing that really jumps out at me is the fact that Israel can buy slaves from their non Jewish neighbors who would most likely be slaves their entire lives, and then when their term is up, they're free. Free to return from whence they came, and possibly become slaves again, or remain and assimilate into a group that now views them as above ever being a slave again.

What was it about "You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever" that you did not understand?

[shnarkle]

I'm really glad you posted those quotes because the thing that really jumps out at me is the fact that Israel can buy slaves from their non Jewish neighbors who would most likely be slaves their entire lives, and then when their term is up, they're free. Free to return from whence they came, and possibly become slaves again, or remain and assimilate into a group that now views them as above ever being a slave again.

What was it about "You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever" that you did not understand?

What is it about "may" that informs you that they will necessarily carry out that option? Even if they do, they're still better off than were they enslaved by their pagan neighbors.

I suppose if one just naturally presumes human beings to be degenerates, then they'll most likely enslave people forever. Perhaps that is the case, but I don't recall you supplying any evidence for that yet. The ironic thing is in having a regulated system of slavery that allows slaves the option of remaining a slave forever. That would have to be one pretty awesome form of slavery that needs to provide a statute like that.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

I simply find advocacy of slavery, even using the Bible as supporting document, is abhorrent.
What IS productive about the Bible advocating slavery? or, since there are many believers on this site who would say it does not, why do some advocates believe slavery is OK?

[Overcomer]

Getting back to the OP topic about being a slave to Christ, I have been reading through the Gospel of Mark and came to this passage from chapter 10 yesterday:

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,� they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.�

36 “What do you want me to do for you?� he asked.

37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.�

38 “You don’t know what you are asking,� Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?�

39 “We can,� they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.�

41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.�

If Jesus Christ came to serve and we are to be like Christ (in 1 John 2:6, we read, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did"), then service to others has to be part and parcel of who we are as Christians. John and James were looking for the world's kind of exaltation. Jesus wasn't. And we're to follow Jesus's lead in this.

[Danmark]

I'm really glad you posted those quotes because the thing that really jumps out at me is the fact that Israel can buy slaves from their non Jewish neighbors who would most likely be slaves their entire lives, and then when their term is up, they're free. Free to return from whence they came, and possibly become slaves again, or remain and assimilate into a group that now views them as above ever being a slave again.

What was it about "You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever" that you did not understand?

What is it about "may" that informs you that they will necessarily carry out that option? Even if they do, they're still better off than were they enslaved by their pagan neighbors.

Ahhh... so the creator of the universe and omnipotent moral keystone of all humanity advocates slavery because some things are even worse? Remember, this is a God who can supposedly do ANYthing. Yet he approves slavery because 'it could be worse?' Sorry, but this God of the Bible isn't even close to being a god. If he existed at all, he was a feckless idiot.