Elijah John wrote:
[
Replying to post 64 by shnarkle]
Parsing the definition of the word "love" seems just an evasive obfuscation.
Not when one is ignorant of how love is implemented. I provided evidence to show that one can do all sorts of these things without any love whatsoever.
I think Paul defines it qute well in 1 Corinthians 13, as ECM points out. To put it more succinctly, love is acting for the well being of the other. Did we really have to spell it out for you?
No, but you do need to be cognizant of the fact that slavery isn't necessarily a bad thing. You're injecting your own bias into the texts rather than looking at the reality of the times.
Those who are independently wealthy might take the same approach you've taken to slavery with regards to some menial employment at minimum wage. Many people who have these jobs not only need these jobs, but they actually like them. It may be the only option, or chance they have at getting ahead in life. Let's outlaw employment because it's beneath your ideals. What does that do for those who now have no options to get ahead in life?
How is slavery in any form acting for the well being of the other? To deprive another of freedom is a sin against human dignity.
Again, you don't seem to comprehend what life was like just a few thousand years ago. Slavery was a fact of life, and not only was slavery usually permanent, but many slaves were treated like dirt. The Mosaic law wasn't attempting to make life perfect, but to work within the boundaries of life as it was then. The attempt was to improve life for the slave, and in most cases, becoming the slave of a Jew was the only chance one had for becoming free, and in many cases remaining enslaved to a Jew was preferable to being free.
Look at the news today, and what you'll find are countless examples of people who being set free from prison only to go right out and intentionally violate their parole just so they can be returned to what they affectionately refer to as "home". For them life is better in prison.
Maybe I'm missing something. But you do seem to be attempting to defend an indefensible institution.
I know you see it that way. I'm not defending slavery in all cases, but only pointing out that back then it was a form of upward mobility that only the Mosaic law provided. A wealthy Israelite could purchase a pagan slaves freedom, but they were also purchasing that slaves time for the next few years in exchange for freeing them.
You're doing this by pointing out the limitations of slavery as practiced by the ancient Hebrews. Are you making merit by comparison to worse examples as practiced by other cultures?
It should be noted. Look at how this plays out today. President Clinton had his "don't ask, don't tell", but that would be looked at today as a horrible philosophy and unconscionably repressive. Look at the feminist movement which is now being sidelines by transgendered people who are now telling us that the defining characteristics of what it means to be a woman are no longer valid. In fact, they're being characterized as intolerant, gender-phobic, repressive, etc. to those who don't define themselves by those criteria. Those leading the charge for equality are now become the villains of equality.
Are you doing this because you think God approved of these practices?
I think you're characterizations are inaccurate.
Or because "the Bible tells me so"? So if "God" or the Bible says slavery is OK, it must be OK, right? I hope you are not saying this.
I don't make my assertions exclusively upon what the texts state. I make these assertions based upon my knowledge of history, human behavior, sociology, psychology, etc.
If you hire someone to do a job for you, and they don't fulfill their obligation, you have certain rights that you can activate to get your money back. This doesn't mean you have to activate these rights, but if you need justice, then this is available to you. The Mosaic law operates the same way. It isn't suggesting that you should beat your slave, but sometimes it may be necessary to get justice.
Our military as well as our justice system works on the same exact principles. When a thief is fleeing from law enforcement, he needs to be brought to justice, but if we're going to follow your logic, we can't lay a hand on him because it wouldn't be merciful or loving. The exact opposite is the case. The thief needs discipline. They need to be reformed for their own good as well as that of society as a whole.
Moreover, the fact is that for some, this is the only thing that will work for some. I know plenty of people who needed severe punishment and discipline to improve their lives. They will be the first to openly admit that had they not been disciplined they would be dead today.
And I don't recall an answer. Do you think human beings are property?
Whether they are, or not the fact is that all we're doing is arbitrarily referring to people according to an agreed upon caste. It's no different than the pro choice/pro life debate where some view the baby as a human being whereas others see private property rights trumping how we view people.
Do you really think it was at anytime the will of God to tell Moses it was OK to call slaves "property"?
Do you really think that asking this question repeatedly after I've already answered it is going to get a different answer?
And I don't recall an answer to the question of whether you see irony attatched to the idea that the God who just liberated the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, would then just go ahead and allow His people to enslave others, no matter how "mild" or "humane" that particular form of slavery.
It is odd. I did answer the question. Here's what I posted:
- If a man harms his slave's face, the slave is free (Exodus 21:26-27), a fair comparison to the injury of a free man (vs. 24-25).
Slaves were released from masters who caused physical injury (Ex. 21:26-27) which isn't really different than that of a free man (vs. 24-25)
While foreign slaves could be made slaves for life, the laws regarding the general treatment of slaves applied to them as well (Lev 24:22, Num 15:15-16). The law made it clear that foreigners were not inferiors who could be mistreated (Ex 23:9); instead they were to be loved just as fellow Israelites were (Lev 19:33-34).
When one Hebrew owned another Hebrew as a slave, the law commanded lenient treatment:
Slaves were to be treated as hired workers, not slaves (Lev 25:39-43)
All slaves were to be freed after six years (Ex 21:2, Dt 15:12)
Freed slaves were to be liberally supplied with grain, wine and livestock (Dt 15:12-15)
Every fiftieth year (the year of jubilee), all Hebrew slaves were to be freed, even those owned by foreigners (Lev 25:10, 47-54)
And as such allow His people to beat them half to death, as long as they lingered a day or two? Pointing out relative merits of Moses brand of slavery does not excuse this horrendous practice. Severe beatings as allowed by Moses are more than just "bruises".
So are you now engaged in outlawing beating people who are fugitives from justice?
I just heard that a baby can be aborted right before it's born. Why? Because it's not considered a human being. It's a private property rights issue. See how that works even today?
Did you know that if a woman is on her way to deliver her baby and loses it in an automobile accident, the offender is charged with manslaughter, but if she's on her way to have an abortion, these charges can't be brought against the guilty party since it is only private property that was damaged.
Once again, the Hebrew theocracy (and the Bible itself) fails to live up to it's professed high ideals, and in fact stands indicted by it's own writ.
Once again, preferring to interpret a text in the only way it doesn't make sense seems to be a common tactic of those with an axe to grind.
