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?

[bluethread]

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 someone’s property. Being sold or bought as merchandise. Being passed on as inheritance.

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

No, it is not a yes or no question. It depends on what constraints are placed on the use of one's property. If there are absolutely not constraints, the I would find that abhorrent.

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?

No, Adonai did not like it that His covenant people were being held as slaves by Egypt.

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

For the same reason that people who don't like being in debt lend money. Israel was not opposed to slavery, they were opposed ruthless harsh labor.

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

He did not. As I noted, He told Israel, "thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt". That is 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?

I would say the reason there is no such commandment is because it is too broad and covers a wide range of contractual relationships.

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.

There is no requirement to own slaves. It was not simple slavery that Israel was oppose to, it was the ruthless harsh labor. There are commandments against ruthless harsh labor.

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)

I am not doing that. That paragraph contains a number of premises that I do not agree with. To go through all of them would take us way off topic. Here we are examining the institution of slavery, specifically that form permitted by Torah law. Let's try to focus on that.

[ttruscott]

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.

You seem to think we believe that GOD is trying to make a utopia here on earth and is failing so badly that it discredits HIS very existence
BUT
some Christians think of this as a prison planet only for sinners who suffer from the consequences of their evil desires as well as judgements and punishments until those who can repent do repent and, made holy, are then heaven ready.

Your straw man argument fails...

[ttruscott]

Who really needs to be told, evil is bad?
That slavery is bad?
Who could use any source to justify it?

It is written that the judgement against Satan and his angels had to be postponed, Matt 13:28...“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ [bring the judgement upon them] 29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. [because they too are evil] 30 Let both grow together until the harvest [the time of the maturity of their holiness making them safe from the judgement].
and
Gen 15: 16 But in the fourth generation they [the Israelites] shall come hither again [to the promised land, ie, heaven]: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full [enough for the Israelites, GOD's people, to condemn every Amorite, GOD's enemies, to death as YHWH judged].

What makes GOD's sinful elect willing to call the judgement upon HIS enemies with HIM when HE asks? Seeing the true depths of the evil they can envisage and desire turns the sinful elect against them until they are willing to see the end of it in the judgement.

GOD does not want these evils to be propagated on Earth but without allowing Satan and his angels to indulge in them and lure HIS sinful elect into the profits of such evils, HIS sheep gone astray into evil aka HIS sinful elect, would never turn away from their idolatry of these evil people and come to see the absolute necessity of the judgment.

The measure of the suffering and evil we endure on earth is the measure of the stubbornness of HIS sinful elect against repenting, not the measure of the evil of Satan and his goats which we understand to be complete.

[Clownboat]

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.

You seem to think we believe that GOD is trying to make a utopia here on earth and is failing so badly that it discredits HIS very existence
BUT
some Christians think of this as a prison planet only for sinners who suffer from the consequences of their evil desires as well as judgements and punishments until those who can repent do repent and, made holy, are then heaven ready.

Your straw man argument fails...

Let's just leave those people be shall we? As long as they aren't hurting others of course.

People can believe whatever wackadoo things they want. If they can start showing that they speak the truth, THEN perhaps we should take note, but to discuss such a notion at this point is to give it more credit then it deserves IMO.

I don't see how earth is a prison anymore than it is a motel. Should we give notice to those that would argue it being a motel as well?

[alexxcJRO]

No, it is not a yes or no question. It depends on what constraints are placed on the use of one's property. If there are absolutely not constraints, the I would find that abhorrent.

Sinister ramblings devoid of any compassion.

“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. “

Q: Do you find this abhorrent, children being passed as permanent inheritance? Would you like to be passed as permanent inheritance as a child?


What about this:

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property�

Q: Do you find this abhorrent, being someone property, being beaten and even being killed by the master? What about dying after 2 days no problem, huh? Would you like be someone property and to be beaten by the master, even being killed by your owner?

This constraints are simply ridiculous and sinister.
And you want me to believe these are the masterpiece of omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, super wise, just and merciful being that is benevolent and loving towards all humans. Common.

I would say the reason there is no such commandment is because it is too broad and covers a wide range of contractual relationships.

Q: What nonsense are you babbling about? What wide range of contractual relationships?:))

Your God was more curious about “Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk� then “You shall not own another human being�.
I am afraid it is just ridiculous.

No, Adonai did not like it that His covenant people were being held as slaves by Egypt.

Q: Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, super wise, just and merciful being that is benevolent and loving towards all humans be bothered only when some humans are slaves?

It does not make any sense.

For the same reason that people who don't like being in debt lend money. Israel was not opposed to slavery, they were opposed ruthless harsh labor.
There is no requirement to own slaves. It was not simple slavery that Israel was oppose to, it was the ruthless harsh labor. There are commandments against ruthless harsh labor.

Q: So your point is that they were not displeased that they were kept as slaves?

He did not. As I noted, He told Israel, "thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt". That is the golden rule.

Nonsense dear sir.
It’s not the golden rule. It’s just an application of the golden rule.
This is the golden rule:
“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).�

I am not doing that. That paragraph contains a number of premises that I do not agree with. To go through all of them would take us way off topic. Here we are examining the institution of slavery, specifically that form permitted by Torah law. Let's try to focus on that.

You have been dodging this question every time I asked. Even when it was on topic.

[bluethread]

No, it is not a yes or no question. It depends on what constraints are placed on the use of one's property. If there are absolutely not constraints, the I would find that abhorrent.

Sinister ramblings devoid of any compassion.

“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. “

Q: Do you find this abhorrent, children being passed as permanent inheritance? Would you like to be passed as permanent inheritance as a child?

I'm not sure what translation you are using, but what the phrase "children of resident foreigners" refers to is descendants, not infants. We see this because the same term is used in referring to "your children" and "the people of Israel". It is not talking about buying infants and putting them in the custody of infants. Also, the concept of a permanent inheritance is not an isolated absolute, but a general statement subject to all of the other regulations. If such an individual is seriously harmed, runs away, or becomes a citizen, then their status changes and they can become free.

What about this:

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property�

Q: Do you find this abhorrent, being someone property, being beaten and even being killed by the master? What about dying after 2 days no problem, huh? Would you like be someone property and to be beaten by the master, even being killed by your owner?

Again, what the translation you are using translates as "survives for a day or two" refers to recovering, not just holding out and then dying. In the context, the point is that there need be no compensation paid, as is the case in the previous verses, because the individual recovered and the holder lost the labor of the slave.

This constraints are simply ridiculous and sinister.
And you want me to believe these are the masterpiece of omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, super wise, just and merciful being that is benevolent and loving towards all humans. Common.

As I have said before, I do not believe that Adonai is omnibenevolent. Also, I think it might be that you see the law as sinister, because you wish to imply bad motives.

I would say the reason there is no such commandment is because it is too broad and covers a wide range of contractual relationships.

Q: What nonsense are you babbling about? What wide range of contractual relationships?:))

Your God was more curious about “Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk� then “You shall not own another human being�.
I am afraid it is just ridiculous.

The goat in it's mothers milk refers to a specific ritual practice of the nations. The concept of property rights is much more complicated.

No, Adonai did not like it that His covenant people were being held as slaves by Egypt.

Q: Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, super wise, just and merciful being that is benevolent and loving towards all humans be bothered only when some humans are slaves?

It does not make any sense.

Because He is not omnibenevolent. Adonai chose the children of Israel. That said, it should be noted that it was not just the hereditary Israelis that were redeemed, there was a mixed multitude that left Egypt.

For the same reason that people who don't like being in debt lend money. Israel was not opposed to slavery, they were opposed ruthless harsh labor.
There is no requirement to own slaves. It was not simple slavery that Israel was oppose to, it was the ruthless harsh labor. There are commandments against ruthless harsh labor.

Q: So your point is that they were not displeased that they were kept as slaves?

They may have been displeased, but based on their complaint in the wilderness, "Why didn't God let us die in comfort in Egypt where we had lamb stew and all the bread we could eat? You've brought us out into this wilderness to starve us to death, the whole company of Israel!", it appears that the general concept of slavery was not their primary concern.

He did not. As I noted, He told Israel, "thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt". That is the golden rule.

Nonsense dear sir.
It’s not the golden rule. It’s just an application of the golden rule.

Culpa, culpa, mea culpa. That is an application of the golden rule.

I am not doing that. That paragraph contains a number of premises that I do not agree with. To go through all of them would take us way off topic. Here we are examining the institution of slavery, specifically that form permitted by Torah law. Let's try to focus on that.

You have been dodging this question every time I asked. Even when it was on topic.

I am not dodging that loaded question. I have repaetedly said that I am not doing that.

[Bust Nak]

I'm not sure what translation you are using, but what the phrase "children of resident foreigners" refers to is descendants, not infants...

In the context, the point is that there need be no compensation paid, as is the case in the previous verses, because the individual recovered and the holder lost the labor of the slave.

I don't know why that would make slavery morally acceptable.

Also, I think it might be that you see the law as sinister, because you wish to imply bad motives.

What non-bad motive could justify slavery that couldn't be fulfilled by banning it outright?

The goat in it's mothers milk refers to a specific ritual practice. The concept of property rights is much more complicated.

If it is complication that you are worried about, then make it that much simpler by out right banning of slavery.

Because He is not omnibenevolent.

How does anything less than omnibenevolent gel with perfection?

[bluethread]

I'm not sure what translation you are using, but what the phrase "children of resident foreigners" refers to is descendants, not infants...

In the context, the point is that there need be no compensation paid, as is the case in the previous verses, because the individual recovered and the holder lost the labor of the slave.

I don't know why that would make slavery morally acceptable.

I was addressing specific objections, not stating that those things justify slavery as a concept. Alex's argument implied that the verse was referring to the buying of infants. The other was related to compensation for injuries.

Also, I think it might be that you see the law as sinister, because you wish to imply bad motives.

What non-bad motive could justify slavery that couldn't be fulfilled by banning it outright?

The maintainance of property rights and restitution. If somebody steals something, sells it and then squanders to proceeds, how is the victim to be compensated. Also, there is the restraint of the antisocial individual. That latter is the exception to the 13th amendment to the Constitution of these United States. Thank you, for enquiring about the concept, rather than just rejecting it dogmatically, as others have done.

The goat in it's mothers milk refers to a specific ritual practice. The concept of property rights is much more complicated.

If it is complication that you are worried about, then make it that much simpler by out right banning of slavery.

That does not simplify property rights, but makes them more complicated. It requires one to come up with a more complicated system for dealing with the housing of antisocial individuals, and compensating their victims.

Because He is not omnibenevolent.

How does anything less than omnibenevolent gel with perfection?

Perfection infers a comparison to a given standard. Why must omnibenevolence be part of that standard?

[alexxcJRO]

I'm not sure what translation you are using, but what the phrase "children of resident foreigners" refers to is descendants, not infants. We see this because the same term is used in referring to "your children" and "the people of Israel". It is not talking about buying infants and putting them in the custody of infants. Also, the concept of a permanent inheritance is not an isolated absolute, but a general statement subject to all of the other regulations. If such an individual is seriously harmed, runs away, or becomes a citizen, then their status changes and they can become free.

Irrelevant. Answer the question.
Q: Do you find this abhorrent, children/young man/adults being passed as permanent inheritance? Would you like to be passed as permanent inheritance as a child/young man/adult?

Again, what the translation you are using translates as "survives for a day or two" refers to recovering, not just holding out and then dying. In the context, the point is that there need be no compensation paid, as is the case in the previous verses, because the individual recovered and the holder lost the labor of the slave.

Irrelevant. Answer the question.
Q: Do you find this abhorrent, being someone property, being beaten and even being killed by the master? Would you like be someone property and to be beaten by the master, even being killed by your owner?

As I have said before, I do not believe that Adonai is omnibenevolent. Also, I think it might be that you see the law as sinister, because you wish to imply bad motives.
Because He is not omnibenevolent. Adonai chose the children of Israel. That said, it should be noted that it was not just the hereditary Israelis that were redeemed, there was a mixed multitude that left Egypt.

Q: Is your God is not benevolent towards all humans?
Q: Does he not love all humans?

They may have been displeased, but based on their complaint in the wilderness, "Why didn't God let us die in comfort in Egypt where we had lamb stew and all the bread we could eat? You've brought us out into this wilderness to starve us to death, the whole company of Israel!", it appears that the general concept of slavery was not their primary concern.

It does not follow that they were not displeased about being slaves just because they complained about their situation in the desert.
They lesser of two evils logic.

[Clownboat]

Adonai chose the children of Israel.

Curious as to why you think that this is?
How are Israelites any different then another tribe?
Please tell me that it is not because the Israelites claimed that their god claimed on their behalf that they are a chosen people.

What was god doing for the Mayans, Aztecs, Chinese and Aboriginals, etc... during the time he desided that the Israelites were special?