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]

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?

Not necessarily and no.

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?

Not necessarily and no.

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

Yes, Adonai is not benevolent to all humans and yes, Adonai does 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.

Your question was about whether the children of Israel were displeased about being slaves. I presume you were implying that if they were displeased, they should not have been slaves. It appears the children of Israel found many things displeasing, as people do today. That does not mean that everythng that is displeasing should be outlawed.

[bluethread]

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.

That is a matter of much speculation. The Scriptures do not make clear why Avraham and Israel were chosen.

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

I do not know. One would have to study their histories.

[Danmark]

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

No, in fact I don't believe in your God at all. It is a pure fantasy; however, Christians claim their God is good, the very definition of good. This claim is so entrenched in their thinking that they even make the argument that slavery is either a good thing, or not so bad, just because God said it was OK.

That Christians find the need to defend slavery, in order to justify their belief in their God, shows how poor their arguments are... how indefensible are both their belief system and its allegedly moral conduct.

Here it is simply stated:

Atheists: 'Slavery is evil'
Christians: 'Slavery is good because God said it is unless Hebrews are the slaves.'

This argument is so absurd, so obviously falls of its own weight, that if one cannot understand its absurdity, there is no point in arguing further.

The evils of racism and slavery are very well documented, as is the evidence Christianity has used the Bible to justify it.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

Continuing to try to justify slavery only convinces non partisans of the absurdity of Christianity and of the laughably inept arguments made on its behalf.

[bluethread]

Continuing to try to justify slavery only convinces non partisans of the absurdity of Christianity and of the laughably inept arguments made on its behalf.

That is interesting, since the abolitionist movement was predominantly manned by evangelical Christians. In fact, atheists Hume and Kant both provided justifications for slavery.

[Danmark]

Continuing to try to justify slavery only convinces non partisans of the absurdity of Christianity and of the laughably inept arguments made on its behalf.

That is interesting, since the abolitionist movement was predominantly manned by evangelical Christians. In fact, atheists Hume and Kant both provided justifications for slavery.

YOU are the one who is attempting to justify slavery, not with logic, but simply because 'the Bible tells me so.'

BTW, you are dead wrong about Kant, tho' indeed he was to some extent a holder of views consistent with the prejudices of his time:

In making this case Kant is unstinting in his criticism of colonial conquest and slavery as uncivilized practices, a position informed by a shift away from his earlier endorsement of racial hierarchies toward a more cosmopolitan view. At the same time, he reproduces hoary stereotypes of non-Europeans, showing how he could articulate a universalist critique of colonial and racist oppression while remaining shaped by contemporary prejudices.
https://blackcentraleurope.com/sources/ ... lism-1795/

You also grossly over simplify Hume on slavery.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2971323

it is certainly true that many Christians in America were abolitionists, including the Free Methodist Church, a tradition I was raised in.* The plain, irrevocable truth is that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery, just as other Christians saw a higher truth and condemned slavery.

__________________________________
* Sadly I can report from first hand experience that many Free Methodists I knew well in the 50's, 60's and 70's, and who were otherwise honorable folk, acted as if they were ignorant of Free Methodist history. They were obvious racists in word and deed. BTW, this is consistent with my point that religion is a product of its culture, rather than being inspired by some mysterious and perfect 'god' who announces absolute morality.

[alexxcJRO]

Not necessarily and no.

Q: If you don't find them abhorent, displeasing why would you not want them to happen to you?
Q: If you don't want them to happen to you why are you defending such practices?

Yes, Adonai is not benevolent to all humans and yes, Adonai does not love all humans.

Firstly,

If God is not benevolent towards all humans , loves all humans means he is malevolent towards some humans.

Q: How do you know God is benevolent toward you? How do you know God loves you?
Q: Why would God not be benevolent towards all humans? Why would God not love all humans?
Q: Why worship and defend a malevolent being? Why do you trust such a being?

You might be worshiping and loving a being that does not care about you, might not love you. )

Secondly,

The bible says God is benevolent, loving towards all, towards all he has created.

"They celebrate your abundant goodness
and joyfully sing of your righteousness.
8 The Lord is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and rich in love.
9 The Lord is good to all;
he has compassion on all he has made."

Your question was about whether the children of Israel were displeased about being slaves. I presume you were implying that if they were displeased, they should not have been slaves. It appears the children of Israel found many things displeasing, as people do today.

But if they found it displeasing then they broke the golden rule.

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.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Okay, you've achieved that much. Would you like to address the theme of objection now? At best the Bible condone slavery, a form of which that is more humane than the contemporary nations.

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.

You know, we manage just fine dealing with people stealing stuff without the means to repay it, without slavery; we manage just fine with the restraint of the antisocial individuals, without slavery. I don't think these point qualify as non-bad motive that cannot be fulfilled by banning slavery outright. Why is your standard for judging God's chosen people so low?

Or perhaps you are proposing that prison sentence as same the concept as 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.

Stick them in a jail for six years to be released on the seventh, done. All the complication re: male and female, of citizens and foreigners, of inheritance, gone.

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

Because it is moral to be benevolent and immoral to be malevolent, and morality is part of that standard.

[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.

That is a matter of much speculation. The Scriptures do not make clear why Avraham and Israel were chosen.

Thank you for that admittance.
I'm sure you can understand why leaders would invent such a claim (not that this proves that this is what happened with your religion of course, but we can see motive for a human to say such a thing).
A god though... doesn't make sense.

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

I do not know. One would have to study their histories.

I have done a fair amount of study. I'm not sure how much you have, but what is assured is that no amount of study from myself, nor yourself can show that they were aware of the god the Israelite tribes claimed chose them.

What does fit the history is that both cultures (all cultures throughout history it seems) invented a god concept to answer the 'unknowns'. Doesn't that seem reasonable?

[Tcg]

That is a matter of much speculation. The Scriptures do not make clear why Avraham and Israel were chosen.

I'll help resolve this mystery. The scriptures were created by Israelites. No further explanation is needed. It's like asking why Republicans claim their political party is the best.

The Israelites wrote this into their story to provide "proof" that their ethno/political/religious system was the best. Mystery solved.

[bluethread]

YOU are the one who is attempting to justify slavery, not with logic, but simply because 'the Bible tells me so.'

No, I have never once said that slavery is justified because 'the bible tells me so.' I have attempted to engage the other posters in a discussion of the various kinds of slavery and if it is best to abolishing it in all of it's forms. As I noted, you are the only one who has given any sign of engaging in a rational discussion. Others have merely shown indignation that one would even entertain such a discussion. I have also had to respond to extremely harsh takes on bible passages, that I did not introduce into the discussion. The only arguments I have raised for possible reasons to not abolish all forms of slavery were in the case of victim restitution and restraint of antisocial behavior, the latter of which is an exception explicitly stated in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of these United States.

BTW, you are dead wrong about Kant, tho' indeed he was to some extent a holder of views consistent with the prejudices of his time:

In making this case Kant is unstinting in his criticism of colonial conquest and slavery as uncivilized practices, a position informed by a shift away from his earlier endorsement of racial hierarchies toward a more cosmopolitan view. At the same time, he reproduces hoary stereotypes of non-Europeans, showing how he could articulate a universalist critique of colonial and racist oppression while remaining shaped by contemporary prejudices.
https://blackcentraleurope.com/sources/ ... lism-1795/

You also grossly over simplify Hume on slavery.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2971323

I was not arguing that Kant and Hume were promoters of the slave trade, I was just pointing out that they provided justifications for slavery. Also, I do not think they took an active part in the abolitionist movement. if one were to apply the standards of some on this thread, that would be enough to have then labelled as full blown slavers.

it is certainly true that many Christians in America were abolitionists, including the Free Methodist Church, a tradition I was raised in.* The plain, irrevocable truth is that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery, just as other Christians saw a higher truth and condemned slavery.

So, Kant is granted consideration, because he was "to some extent a holder of views consistent with the prejudices of his time:" and "shaped by contemporary prejudices". Yet, a Christian who actively opposed the "contemporary prejudices" is dismissed as insignificant, because he shared other unrelated views with Christians who held "views consistent with the prejudices of his time"?

Now, if you would like to have a reasonable discussion about the various forms of slavery and reasons why it's absolute rejection may not be the best approach, we can have that discussion.