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]

So, such a any bike that is the product of a perfect bike designer should also work as a perfect toothbrush for everyone?

Let me answer that with a question: Which is better, a bike that has extra utility, or one that doesn't have extra utility, all other aspects being equal? I know which one I'd choose.

.

Better is a value judgement and not an absolute. To the person who has no need for the extra utility it is superfluous at best, and could be a detriment, because the extra utility could reduce the intended utility.

No, I think I have made it clear that I am not talking about an omnibenevolent deity. Just because something can be done, does not mean that it must be done.

Would you go as far as to say you are not talking about a benevolent deity? I ask because you don't have to be omnibenevolent, mere benevolent to not screw the general population over re: making a bike that is hard to use on every day paved road.

One would have to be benevolent in a particular way. Not being benevolent in one wqay does not equate to not being benevolent in all ways. Rather than list every case in which a benevolent deity is benevolent, one simply states that the deity is not omnibenevolent.

There is nothing stopping a perfect bike maker from making a specialized bicycle designed for a specific people for a specific purpose.

What other than apathy is stopping a perfect bike maker from making a general use bicycle for the general public that's great for any one specific purpose?

Yes, so what? Why can't a deity be apathetic or even hostile toward some?

[Bust Nak]

Better is a value judgement and not an absolute. To the person who has no need for the extra utility it is superfluous at best, and could be a detriment, because the extra utility could reduce the intended utility.

Hence the "all other aspects being equal" caveat.

One would have to be benevolent in a particular way. Not being benevolent in one wqay does not equate to not being benevolent in all ways. Rather than list every case in which a benevolent deity is benevolent, one simply states that the deity is not omnibenevolent.

Along the same lines, this deity wouldn't be omnimalevolent, just malevolent in particular ways?

Yes, so what? Why can't a deity be apathetic or even hostile toward some?

It can, it just wouldn't qualify for the label perfectly moral.

[bluethread]

Better is a value judgement and not an absolute. To the person who has no need for the extra utility it is superfluous at best, and could be a detriment, because the extra utility could reduce the intended utility.

Hence the "all other aspects being equal" caveat.

All other aspects are never equal.

One would have to be benevolent in a particular way. Not being benevolent in one way does not equate to not being benevolent in all ways. Rather than list every case in which a benevolent deity is benevolent, one simply states that the deity is not omnibenevolent.

Along the same lines, this deity wouldn't be omnimalevolent, just malevolent in particular ways?

That is true.

Yes, so what? Why can't a deity be apathetic or even hostile toward some?

It can, it just wouldn't qualify for the label perfectly moral.

Only in the eyes of the egalitarian humanist. Morality is subject to the philosophy from which it is derived.

[Danmark]

Better is a value judgement and not an absolute. To the person who has no need for the extra utility it is superfluous at best, and could be a detriment, because the extra utility could reduce the intended utility.

Hence the "all other aspects being equal" caveat.

All other aspects are never equal.

One would have to be benevolent in a particular way. Not being benevolent in one way does not equate to not being benevolent in all ways. Rather than list every case in which a benevolent deity is benevolent, one simply states that the deity is not omnibenevolent.

Along the same lines, this deity wouldn't be omnimalevolent, just malevolent in particular ways?

That is true.

Yes, so what? Why can't a deity be apathetic or even hostile toward some?

It can, it just wouldn't qualify for the label perfectly moral.

Only in the eyes of the egalitarian humanist. Morality is subject to the philosophy from which it is derived.

So, an "egalitarian humanist" find slavery immoral, but a Christian defends slavery as moral. That is an interesting statement. If true it utterly condemns Christianity as immoral while it demonstrates that the secular humanist who believes humans should be treated fairly and equally has a superior morality to Christians.

[shnarkle]

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.

You can't remember what you said a mere 18 hours ago? You claimed Exodus 21:2 and Deuteronomy 15:12-14 falisfied the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" (Hebrews.) I am asking you how so, when it clearly stated that non Hebrews can be kept as slaves for life.

Yes, the bible doesn't exclude Hebrews from slavery. A Hebrew, or Jew may enslave a fellow Jew to pay off debt etc. It isn't for life, but then the claim didn't specify for life.

[alexxcJRO]

Yes, so what? Why can't a deity be apathetic or even hostile toward some?

Firstly,

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."

[Bust Nak]

All other aspects are never equal.

Are we still talking about an omnipotent deity? You are suggesting that adding a feature without affecting pre-existing feature is a logical impossibility?

That is true.

Only in the eyes of the egalitarian humanist. Morality is subject to the philosophy from which it is derived.

That's good enough for me - you worship a malevolent, less than morality perfect God.

[Bust Nak]

You claimed Exodus 21:2 and Deuteronomy 15:12-14 falisfied the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" (Hebrews.) I am asking you how so, when it clearly stated that non Hebrews can be kept as slaves for life.

Yes, the bible doesn't exclude Hebrews from slavery. A Hebrew, or Jew may enslave a fellow Jew to pay off debt etc. It isn't for life, but then the claim didn't specify for life.

We weren't talking about a "fellow Jew" though. We were talking about races except a "fellow Jew." Can you clarify that you now accept that neither of the verses you provided falisfied the claim in question?

[Elijah John]

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.

Your obsession with power leads you astray.

..

Moderator Comment

It is best to make your points without framing them in personal terms.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[shnarkle]

You claimed Exodus 21:2 and Deuteronomy 15:12-14 falisfied the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" (Hebrews.) I am asking you how so, when it clearly stated that non Hebrews can be kept as slaves for life.

Yes, the bible doesn't exclude Hebrews from slavery. A Hebrew, or Jew may enslave a fellow Jew to pay off debt etc. It isn't for life, but then the claim didn't specify for life.

We weren't talking about a "fellow Jew" though. We were talking about races except a "fellow Jew." Can you clarify that you now accept that neither of the verses you provided falisfied the claim in question?

The fact remains, and this is what I was explicitly referring to; that "the claim that the Bible "recommends practicing slavery against all races except one" Is blatantly false. You can talk about gentiles exclusively, but that doesn't negate the facts.