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?

[Danmark]

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.

Thank you. Are you agreeing that slavery is not justified?

Here's where I think we may intersect: Slavery is a man made institution and is wrong in that it involves the ownership and total domination of another human being; and that each human being is unique and deserving of his/her own thoughts and decisions; and that slavery directly contravenes those ideals.

I think we may also agree that slavery, with certain guidelines, may be preferable to complete anarchy under a totally unregulated economy.

Therefore I can appreciate an argument that contends that given the feudal/unfettered capitalism and tribalism of 3000 BCE, a regulated slavery was preferred and more moral than the alternative of pure, amoral capitalism where a human individual is accorded zero human rights.

My point is that an omniscient, wise, and loving God of all humanity would have early on declared that slavery was inherently evil since it involves the complete and absolute denial of basic human rights and dignity that is involved in granting inheritance rights of humans as mere property.

[ttruscott]

Q: Do you find this abhorrent, children/young man/adults being passed as permanent inheritance?

ALL slaves were set free during the Jubilee year whether they were sold that year or in the first year of the shmita:

Slaves in the Jubilee year:
This fiftieth year is sacred"it is a time of freedom and of celebration when everyone will receive back their original property, and slaves will return home to their families.
"Leviticus 25:10 (CEV " free translation)

And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
"Leviticus 25:10 (Jewish Publication Society translation " more precise translation)

Deuteronomic Code:
Deuteronomy 15:12 If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. 13 When you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you.

Deuteronomy 23:15 You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.

Covenant Code
Exodus 21:1 These are the laws you are to set before them: 2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

[Willum]

Brides of Christ.
Slaves of Christ.
Slave brides of Christ.
Bride slaves of Christ?

Isnt this all very weird to anyone else?

[Bust Nak]

ALL slaves were set free during the Jubilee year whether they were sold that year or in the first year of the shmita...

It seems by ALL slaves the author meant just Hebrew slaves, as it states in the same passage that "46 And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour."

[bluethread]

Thank you. Are you agreeing that slavery is not justified?

I'm not sure it is in all cases, and the constitution of these United States seems to agree.

Here's where I think we may intersect: Slavery is a man made institution and is wrong in that it involves the ownership and total domination of another human being; and that each human being is unique and deserving of his/her own thoughts and decisions; and that slavery directly contravenes those ideals.

I do agree that it is not commanded but permitted. However, at least in the case of the accommodations of HaTorah, it does not contravene the principle that one is responsible for one's own thoughts and decisions. In fact, it reinforces these principles by requiring that individual to uphold contracts and abide by the law of the land.

I think we may also agree that slavery, with certain guidelines, may be preferable to complete anarchy under a totally unregulated economy.

Agreed.

Therefore I can appreciate an argument that contends that given the feudal/unfettered capitalism and tribalism of 3000 BCE, a regulated slavery was preferred and more moral than the alternative of pure, amoral capitalism where a human individual is accorded zero human rights.

I think you mischaracterize the nature of the ancient nearest, and possibly the majority of the ancient world. The overarching social systems tended to by tyrannical dictatorships and at best oligarchies. HaTorah served to decentralize the economy and drive the decision making process down to the local level, substituting a bottom up approach as opposed to a top down one.

My point is that an omniscient, wise, and loving God of all humanity would have early on declared that slavery was inherently evil since it involves the complete and absolute denial of basic human rights and dignity that is involved in granting inheritance rights of humans as mere property.

That sounds like a reasonable view in stable society. However, it ignores two very important factors that are integral in establishing a stable society. Those are the rule of law and the sanctity of the covenant. If one is free to reject the law of the land and is not held to one's word, there is no basis on which to establish a society.

[Danmark]

Thank you. Are you agreeing that slavery is not justified?

I'm not sure it is in all cases, and the constitution of these United States seems to agree.

Here's where I think we may intersect: Slavery is a man made institution and is wrong in that it involves the ownership and total domination of another human being; and that each human being is unique and deserving of his/her own thoughts and decisions; and that slavery directly contravenes those ideals.

I do agree that it is not commanded but permitted. However, at least in the case of the accommodations of HaTorah, it does not contravene the principle that one is responsible for one's own thoughts and decisions. In fact, it reinforces these principles by requiring that individual to uphold contracts and abide by the law of the land.

I think we may also agree that slavery, with certain guidelines, may be preferable to complete anarchy under a totally unregulated economy.

Agreed.

Therefore I can appreciate an argument that contends that given the feudal/unfettered capitalism and tribalism of 3000 BCE, a regulated slavery was preferred and more moral than the alternative of pure, amoral capitalism where a human individual is accorded zero human rights.

I think you mischaracterize the nature of the ancient nearest, and possibly the majority of the ancient world. The overarching social systems tended to by tyrannical dictatorships and at best oligarchies. HaTorah served to decentralize the economy and drive the decision making process down to the local level, substituting a bottom up approach as opposed to a top down one.

My point is that an omniscient, wise, and loving God of all humanity would have early on declared that slavery was inherently evil since it involves the complete and absolute denial of basic human rights and dignity that is involved in granting inheritance rights of humans as mere property.

That sounds like a reasonable view in stable society. However, it ignores two very important factors that are integral in establishing a stable society. Those are the rule of law and the sanctity of the covenant. If one is free to reject the law of the land and is not held to one's word, there is no basis on which to establish a society.

And exactly how was the God who was able to wipeout virtually all of mankind in a worldwide flood, a God who, according to Paul, decides who will lead each nation, a God with ultimate power over the universe, cannot make a society stable without sanctioning slavery in its many forms?

[bluethread]

And exactly how was the God who was able to wipeout virtually all of mankind in a worldwide flood, a God who, according to Paul, decides who will lead each nation, a God with ultimate power over the universe, cannot make a society stable without sanctioning slavery in its many forms?

Back to the, if a deity is al powerful why can't that deity make things the way I prefer them argument. I never said that Adonai sanctions slavery in its many forms. I said that a stable society requires respect of the rule of law and contract rights. Can an all powerful deity make a world where there can be a stable society without those things, sure. However, that would mean that men would need to have a drastically limited agency. Is that what you want?

[Bust Nak]

Can an all powerful deity make a world where there can be a stable society without those things, sure. However, that would mean that men would need to have a drastically limited agency. Is that what you want?

It's not about what you or I want, it is about what is logically necessarily to avoid a contradiction. Can an all powerful deity make a world where there can be a stable society without those things? Yes? Then anything less than that is a logical contradiction.

[bluethread]

Can an all powerful deity make a world where there can be a stable society without those things, sure. However, that would mean that men would need to have a drastically limited agency. Is that what you want?

It's not about what you or I want, it is about what is logically necessarily to avoid a contradiction. Can an all powerful deity make a world where there can be a stable society without those things? Yes? Then anything less than that is a logical contradiction.

No, it is not any more a contradiction than gears on a bicycle being necessary for it to be used in hill climbing is a contradiction. If a bicycle designer loved all bicycle riders, he might design a bicycle to use in hill climbing that does not require gears. However, the bicycle designer could also expect the bicycle rider to take an active part in the riding experience. Also, the designer might not love all bicycle riders, he might only love engaged hill climbing bicycle riders.

[polonius]

The "servitude" that Panzer describes allows, subject to certain conditions, the buying, selling and exchange of other human beings as described in the Holy Office decree of 1866 and he believes this has been the constant teaching of Popes down through the ages.[137]

Maxwell (1975) argues against a very rigid understanding of Papal texts, and their immutability, noting that torture was also once sanctioned by Papal decree.[138] Pope John Paul II in 1995 "in the name of the whole Church" forbade the selling of women and children.[139]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_ ... ery_change?

So another unchangeable bible and Church teaching is now a sin!