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]

Do you think that people living in these United States be required to agree to accept the Constitution of these United States?

Yes, of course. This may seem to you to be an apt comparison, but it is entirely fallacious.
The U.S. Constitution includes freedom of thought and the right to believe or reject any religion or system of thought. It is not intrusive. It rejects intrusion into our private lives and beliefs and protects that privacy and our freedom from intrusion by government.

The 'Covenant' of Abraham and his imaginary God requires the opposite: the adherence to the core of one's inner being to the belief in an imaginary God, to one religion, one belief. The 'Covenant' is Orwell's 1984. The U.S. Constitution protects us from an ultra totalitarian regime that insists on control of even our innermost private thoughts. That covenant requires us to surrender our most private thoughts and even requires us to kill our children should this imagined tyrant require.

'God' requires us to surrender our very humanity itself.

[bluethread]

Do you think that people living in these United States be required to agree to accept the Constitution of these United States?

Yes, of course. This may seem to you to be an apt comparison, but it is entirely fallacious.
The U.S. Constitution includes freedom of thought and the right to believe or reject any religion or system of thought. It is not intrusive. It rejects intrusion into our private lives and beliefs and protects that privacy and our freedom from intrusion by government.

Oh yah, confescating my money under threat of fine or imprisonment, to provide for people who do not agree to accept the Constitution, is not intrusive at all? Also, the government telling me who I can and can not do business with is also not an itrusion? The government telling me what I can and can not own, even if I am not a threat to anyone is also not an intrusion?

The 'Covenant' of Abraham and his imaginary God requires the opposite: the adherence to the core of one's inner being to the belief in an imaginary God, to one religion, one belief. The 'Covenant' is Orwell's 1984. The U.S. Constitution protects us from an ultra totalitarian regime that insists on control of even our innermost private thoughts. That covenant requires us to surrender our most private thoughts and even requires us to kill our children should this imagined tyrant require.

'God' requires us to surrender our very humanity itself.

How is it that those thoughts are regulated under Torah law? Remember, we are talking about slavery here and the principle of whether or not an individual should be compelled to abide by the law of the land, not the philosophical underpinnings. Just as the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution of these Untied States are important, but not enforced by statute, so those things you mentioned are the obligations of Adonai's people, but are not enforced by statute on them or the sojourners living among them.

[Danmark]

Do you think that people living in these United States be required to agree to accept the Constitution of these United States?

Yes, of course. This may seem to you to be an apt comparison, but it is entirely fallacious.
The U.S. Constitution includes freedom of thought and the right to believe or reject any religion or system of thought. It is not intrusive. It rejects intrusion into our private lives and beliefs and protects that privacy and our freedom from intrusion by government.

Oh yah, confescating my money under threat of fine or imprisonment, to provide for people who do not agree to accept the Constitution, is not intrusive at all? Also, the government telling me who I can and can not do business with is also not an itrusion? The government telling me what I can and can not own, even if I am not a threat to anyone is also not an intrusion?

WHAT are you talking about? You've
made a series of statements that imply false claims. Can you document that any of them are true? Nothing you've said is true. Please support your claims.

How is it that those thoughts are regulated under Torah law? Remember, we are talking about slavery here and the principle of whether or not an individual should be compelled to abide by the law of the land, not the philosophical underpinnings. Just as the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution of these Untied States are important, but not enforced by statute, so those things you mentioned are the obligations of Adonai's people, but are not enforced by statute on them or the sojourners living among them.

I am utterly bewildered you can make such a claim. God, and his covenant, DEMAND BELIEF he exists. Belief is something that goes to the core of who we are. Jesus goes even further into the intrusiveness of God into our minds when he declares that hating is punishable, that mere lusting equals adultery.

The Constitution demands we allow freedom of speech and thought. The Torah condemns freedom of thought. Still not convinced? Look no farther than the Decalogue. Several apply and even implicate free speech, but "You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property" is an obvious law aimed at mind control. We are told not to even think about wanting anything that belongs to our neighbor.

[Bust Nak]

What do you consider to be the best way to deal with enforcing the rule of law and resolution of debt?

Abolish ownership coupled with infinite supply of resources on demand.

One can also leave.

By leave, you mean flee to another settlement and hope the owner don't come after the slave?

Do you think that people living in these United States be required to agree to accept the Constitution of these United States?

Yes? Where are you going with this?

I would think that it would possible for a deity to arrange things according to you personal preferences, but why should a deity do that?

Should? Because I want it to. Did you mean to ask why would a deity do that?

As you like to point out, that is subjective.

It's still not entirely clear to me that you are a subjectivist. Can I get you to confirm that for me? I ask because it would be rather odd for a non-subjectivist to appeal to subjective morality.

Omnibenevolence would not be morally perfect, but behavior that is favorable to everyone, regardless of one's morality. Whether a malevalent being can be moral or not would depend on wht one considers moral.

You seem to be suggesting that it would be moral to be malevolent in certain curcumstances? I can only guess that something along the lines of jailing a criminal counts as malevolent to you? Doesn't malevalent imply evil intention, i.e. going against one's moral standard, regardless of what that moral standard is?

Tha said, let me reitterate that one can be benevolent and malevolent at the same time.

That much is fine.

[bluethread]

Oh yah, confescating my money under threat of fine or imprisonment, to provide for people who do not agree to accept the Constitution, is not intrusive at all? Also, the government telling me who I can and can not do business with is also not an itrusion? The government telling me what I can and can not own, even if I am not a threat to anyone is also not an intrusion?

WHAT are you talking about? You've
made a series of statements that imply false claims. Can you document that any of them are true? Nothing you've said is true. Please support your claims.

The government takes money from me under threat of fine and/or imprisonment and gives it to noncitizens in the form of goods and services, and they also use it to support a prison system the serves as a university for crime. The government says that if I decorate cakes, I have to decorate cakes for any and all occasions. The government can also tell me what kind of gun I can own. But, we are getting bogged down in the details. The principle is that it is acceptable to compel the noncitizen to observe the rule of law.

I am utterly bewildered you can make such a claim. God, and his covenant, DEMAND BELIEF he exists. Belief is something that goes to the core of who we are. Jesus goes even further into the intrusiveness of God into our minds when he declares that hating is punishable, that mere lusting equals adultery.

The Constitution demands we allow freedom of speech and thought. The Torah condemns freedom of thought. Still not convinced? Look no farther than the Decalogue. Several apply and even implicate free speech, but "You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property" is an obvious law aimed at mind control. We are told not to even think about wanting anything that belongs to our neighbor.

And the legal evidence for the prosecution of and penalty for those things is?

[bluethread]

What do you consider to be the best way to deal with enforcing the rule of law and resolution of debt?

Abolish ownership coupled with infinite supply of resources on demand.

Where is one to find this infinite supply of resources? If ownership is abolished, where is the incentive to use resources wisely?

One can also leave.

By leave, you mean flee to another settlement and hope the owner don't come after the slave?

Yes, or another country.

Do you think that people living in these United States be required to agree to accept the Constitution of these United States?

Yes? Where are you going with this?

What if the person refuses to do so?

I would think that it would possible for a deity to arrange things according to you personal preferences, but why should a deity do that?

Should? Because I want it to. Did you mean to ask why would a deity do that?

Whether I used the word should or would, you could have given the same pedantic answer. What is the incentive for a deity to do that?

As you like to point out, that is subjective.

It's still not entirely clear to me that you are a subjectivist. Can I get you to confirm that for me? I ask because it would be rather odd for a non-subjectivist to appeal to subjective morality.

In a discussion, one follows a premise, whether one believes in it or not, to test whether the premise holds. It is my understanding the you are a subjectivist. Therefore, I am framing the discussion to coincide with your viewpoint.

Omnibenevolence would not be morally perfect, but behavior that is favorable to everyone, regardless of one's morality. Whether a malevalent being can be moral or not would depend on wht one considers moral.

You seem to be suggesting that it would be moral to be malevolent in certain curcumstances? I can only guess that something along the lines of jailing a criminal counts as malevolent to you? Doesn't malevalent imply evil intention, i.e. going against one's moral standard, regardless of what that moral standard is?

You are narrowing the definition to one's own moral standard. Malevalence is the violation of any moral standard. It does not imply a violation of one's own moral standard. One can also hold several moral standards for different life forms. Humans have different moral standards with regard to animal than they do for other humans. That is why I generally do not muck about in the vagueness of the terms "evil" and "malevolence". I prefer to examine a proposed standard based on a proposed philosophical viewpoint, rather than a vague generality or visceral response.

That said, let me reitterate that one can be benevolent and malevolent at the same time.

That much is fine.

Thank you, that is an important principle to keep in mind.

[Bust Nak]

Where is one to find this infinite supply of resources?

Omnipotent deities.

If ownership is abolished, where is the incentive to use resources wisely?

There isn't any and it's moot with an infinite supply.

Yes, or another country.

That doesn't sound like a good idea considering other countries don't treat escaped slaves as nice as the Hebrews did.

What if the person refuses to do so?

They are typically dealt with according to the local law. I am still not sure where you are going with this.

Whether I used the word should or would, you could have given the same pedantic answer. What is the incentive for a deity to do that?

Why would a deity, or indeed anyone, need incentive to do the right and compassionate thing? It is in the nature of a benevolent deity to make things trivially easy for mortals.

In a discussion, one follows a premise, whether one believes in it or not, to test whether the premise holds. It is my understanding the you are a subjectivist. Therefore, I am framing the discussion to coincide with your viewpoint.

Aren't the premises being examined here, yours and not mine? I am not the one who have to reconcile slavery with my theology after all, nor am I proposing an omnipotent and benevolent deity.

Further more, if you were framing the discussion to coincide with my viewpoint, then why would you call my answers along the lines of "because I want to" pedantic? It's exactly the kind of answer that follows from the premise of subjectivism. Were you expecting anything else? I mean I could explain the evolution of morality, the source of my preference for certain actions and disapproval of others but I am pretty sure that's not what you are after.

You are narrowing the definition to one's own moral standard.

Wait, I thought you were framing the discussion to coincide with my viewpoint?

Malevalence is the violation of any moral standard. It does not imply a violation of one's own moral standard. One can also hold several moral standards for different life forms. Humans have different moral standards with regard to animal than they do for other humans. That is why I generally do not muck about in the vagueness of the terms "evil" and "malevolence". I prefer to examine a proposed standard based on a proposed philosophical viewpoint, rather than a vague generality or visceral response.

If malevolence is the violation of any moral standard, then surely the label of omnimalevolence would apply to the deity you worship, as trivially any and all action would violate a moral standard that says, "you shouldn't *insert that particular thing here.*" And presumably, that deity would also qualify as omnibenevolent do doing stuff that matches moral standards that says, "you should do that thing." That doesn't sound like a useful stance.

[bluethread]

Where is one to find this infinite supply of resources?

Omnipotent deities.

Why should an infinite deity provide you with an infinite supply of resources?

If ownership is abolished, where is the incentive to use resources wisely?

There isn't any and it's moot with an infinite supply.

Maybe that is why we do not have an infinite supply of resources. Since, as mentioned before, we now have the ability to speculate on a multitude possibilities, the ability to wisely use resources is an important skill to develop.

Yes, or another country.

That doesn't sound like a good idea considering other countries don't treat escaped slaves as nice as the Hebrews did.

Then, they can stay in the better society.

What if the person refuses to do so?

They are typically dealt with according to the local law. I am still not sure where you are going with this.

How would local law deal with that, without slavery? I am not saying that there are not other options. I just would like to know what options you would suggest.

Whether I used the word should or would, you could have given the same pedantic answer. What is the incentive for a deity to do that?

Why would a deity, or indeed anyone, need incentive to do the right and compassionate thing? It is in the nature of a benevolent deity to make things trivially easy for mortals.

It is? What is right and compassionate about not encouraging incentive. I believe that I was a benevolent parent, but that was not my nature. In fact, as a benevolent parent I permitted my children to struggle with trivial things so that they would learn to act wisely.

In a discussion, one follows a premise, whether one believes in it or not, to test whether the premise holds. It is my understanding the you are a subjectivist. Therefore, I am framing the discussion to coincide with your viewpoint.

Aren't the premises being examined here, yours and not mine? I am not the one who have to reconcile slavery with my theology after all, nor am I proposing an omnipotent and benevolent deity.

You are asserting that slavery is never appropriate and specifically that slavery as regulated by HaTorah is not appropriate. I am just framing the discussion according to premises that you would find acceptable, so that you do not accuse me of presuming the conclusion.

Further more, if you were framing the discussion to coincide with my viewpoint, then why would you call my answers along the lines of "because I want to" pedantic? It's exactly the kind of answer that follows from the premise of subjectivism. Were you expecting anything else? I mean I could explain the evolution of morality, the source of my preference for certain actions and disapproval of others but I am pretty sure that's not what you are after.

I was stating that objecting to the use of the word should rather than would is pedantic. The point of the question was about the purpose.

You are narrowing the definition to one's own moral standard.

Wait, I thought you were framing the discussion to coincide with my viewpoint?

Yes, regarding premises. When we are talking about definitions, then things need to be clarified.

Malevalence is the violation of any moral standard. It does not imply a violation of one's own moral standard. One can also hold several moral standards for different life forms. Humans have different moral standards with regard to animal than they do for other humans. That is why I generally do not muck about in the vagueness of the terms "evil" and "malevolence". I prefer to examine a proposed standard based on a proposed philosophical viewpoint, rather than a vague generality or visceral response.

If malevolence is the violation of any moral standard, then surely the label of omnimalevolence would apply to the deity you worship, as trivially any and all action would violate a moral standard that says, "you shouldn't *insert that particular thing here.*" And presumably, that deity would also qualify as omnibenevolent do doing stuff that matches moral standards that says, "you should do that thing." That doesn't sound like a useful stance.

With regard to a specific commandment, it could be said that a deity is omnimalevolent, in that the deity is malevolent to all who break the commandment. However, few, if any, commandments are absolute, applying to any and all life forms, in all circumstances. Also, one could not say that the deity was malevolent with regard to the one who benefits from the commandment. Therefore, that deity would not be omnimalevolent in that regard. The deity would be malevolent toward the violator and benevolent toward the benficiary of the commandment.

[Bust Nak]

Why should an infinite deity provide you with an infinite supply of resources?

You are doing it again. An infinite deity should provide me with an infinite supply of resources because I want it.

Maybe that is why we do not have an infinite supply of resources. Since, as mentioned before, we now have the ability to speculate on a multitude possibilities, the ability to wisely use resources is an important skill to develop.

You say it's important but it's importance depends entirely on the available of resources. It's a completely useless skill to develop given infinite resources.

Then, they can stay in the better society.

The one that says convert or be slave forever?

How would local law deal with that, without slavery? I am not saying that there are not other options. I just would like to know what options you would suggest.

The same way we deal with it now, fines and/or jail terms for criminals.

It is? What is right and compassionate about not encouraging incentive.

Incentive for what, I am guessing this is referring to incentive to wise usage of resources? It's moot given infinite resources.

I believe that I was a benevolent parent, but that was not my nature. In fact, as a benevolent parent I permitted my children to struggle with trivial things so that they would learn to act wisely.

That's understandable given you are not omnipotent and in no position to generate infinite resources - teaching them to act in a way that is useful in life would qualify as making things easy for your child. The same does not apply to an omnipotent being.

You are asserting that slavery is never appropriate and specifically that slavery as regulated by HaTorah is not appropriate. I am just framing the discussion according to premises that you would find acceptable, so that you do not accuse me of presuming the conclusion.

Given you are talking to a subjectivist, the assertion that slavery is never appropriate is justified simply by appealing to my opinion. How exactly would that help you?

I was stating that objecting to the use of the word should rather than would is pedantic. The point of the question was about the purpose.

Asking me what should and shouldn't be done is simply asking me to state my opinion. On the other hand asking me what would and wouldn't be done would involve something other than my opinion. The distinction is very important.

Yes, regarding premises. When we are talking about definitions, then things need to be clarified.

Since you seem to be in the accommodating mood of going with my stance, how about we use my personally definition of malevolence as a violation of Bust Nak's moral standard? No? Just a suggestion.

With regard to a specific commandment, it could be said that a deity is omnimalevolent, in that the deity is malevolent to all who break the commandment. However, few, if any, commandments are absolute, applying to any and all life forms, in all circumstances. Also, one could not say that the deity was malevolent with regard to the one who benefits from the commandment. Therefore, that deity would not be omnimalevolent in that regard. The deity would be malevolent toward the violator and benevolent toward the benficiary of the commandment.

How about you start with giving what malevolent means to you?

[bluethread]

You are doing it again. An infinite deity should provide me with an infinite supply of resources because I want it.

You also are doing it again, a deity is not obligated to do what you want.

Maybe that is why we do not have an infinite supply of resources. Since, as mentioned before, we now have the ability to speculate on a multitude possibilities, the ability to wisely use resources is an important skill to develop.

You say it's important but it's importance depends entirely on the available of resources. It's a completely useless skill to develop given infinite resources.

No, it is important in developing the ability to engage in productive activity. It is a demonstrable fact that we do better when we are engaged in productive activity.

Then, they can stay in the better society.

The one that says convert or be slave forever?

Yes, accept the constitution, be compelled to abide by the constitution, or live in another country. That is how nation states work.

How would local law deal with that, without slavery? I am not saying that there are not other options. I just would like to know what options you would suggest.

The same way we deal with it now, fines and/or jail terms for criminals.

How do they assure that the fines will be paid? Who pays for the jail?

It is? What is right and compassionate about not encouraging incentive.

Incentive for what, I am guessing this is referring to incentive to wise usage of resources? It's moot given infinite resources.

I believe that I was a benevolent parent, but that was not my nature. In fact, as a benevolent parent I permitted my children to struggle with trivial things so that they would learn to act wisely.

That's understandable given you are not omnipotent and in no position to generate infinite resources - teaching them to act in a way that is useful in life would qualify as making things easy for your child. The same does not apply to an omnipotent being.

However, the omnipotent being has no obligation to provide anything. Also, why do you think that a world without challenges would be a good thing?

You are asserting that slavery is never appropriate and specifically that slavery as regulated by HaTorah is not appropriate. I am just framing the discussion according to premises that you would find acceptable, so that you do not accuse me of presuming the conclusion.

Given you are talking to a subjectivist, the assertion that slavery is never appropriate is justified simply by appealing to my opinion. How exactly would that help you?

Then the slaveholder's view is as good as yours and the slaveholder and his slave can be on their merry way. As with you, he justifies his view by appealing to his opinion.

Yes, regarding premises. When we are talking about definitions, then things need to be clarified.

Since you seem to be in the accommodating mood of going with my stance, how about we use my personally definition of malevolence as a violation of Bust Nak's moral standard? No? Just a suggestion.

Well, then we are no longer talking about slavery always being inappropriate or even inappropriate with regard to HaTorah, but about it being inappropriate according to the law of Bust Nak. Based on that, I concur that slavery is inappropriate in all situations according to Bust Nak. Have a good day.

With regard to a specific commandment, it could be said that a deity is omnimalevolent, in that the deity is malevolent to all who break the commandment. However, few, if any, commandments are absolute, applying to any and all life forms, in all circumstances. Also, one could not say that the deity was malevolent with regard to the one who benefits from the commandment. Therefore, that deity would not be omnimalevolent in that regard. The deity would be malevolent toward the violator and benevolent toward the benficiary of the commandment.

How about you start with giving what malevolent means to you?

Hold it. You just asked that we have our discussion based on your defintion of malevolence. Maybe, that is why we use common definitions and not personal subjective ones.