|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Slavery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Point taken.
but it was still the slaves choice, thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
This is going in circles now, I give up, have a nice day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I hope you realize you're trying to justify sin and the very wrong that Jesus tried to right.
He said eye for an eye was sin. He said love thy enemy, not enslave him/her. And if you think owning a slave is a kind of love, you are wrong and you are distorting the truth. I hope you come to Christ in your Old Testament reflections. -Chris Porteus edit: typo and word change This message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-20-2005 12:19 AM This message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-20-2005 12:22 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Are you saying the OT is wrong?
And don't worry about me and Christ, we got a fine relationship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
riverrat writes: that's your marrowminded view of slavery. There is no doubt about the meaning of the word "slavery"; according to the Oxford English dictionary:
quote: To say it can be defined in any other way is disingenuous.
riverrat, quoting writes: The slavery in the Bible was not based on race at all. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. Whether or not slavery depends on ethnicity makes no difference whatsoever. If one enters slavery voluntarily by selling onself as a bonded labourer, it still means the same thing - you have sold your personal rights. The modern understanding of human rights is that they are inalienable and as such slavery whether based on ethnicity or carried out voluntarily is unacceptable. It's worth talking more on bonded labour, as this seems to be the kind of thing you're concerned with rather than slavery in general. A bonded labourer is the property of a slaveowner until they have paid off a debt. The fact that there is no alternative means of removing the burden of debt for somebody who might consider becoming a bonded labourer indicates that it is not "voluntary" in the sense that it is voluntary to change banks or shop at a different store. Bonded labour doesn't just mean that the product of your labour is the property of your creditor, but that YOU are the property of your creditor. It is "voluntary" in the sense that you have only one option to remove your debt, and can choose that one option voluntarily. Bonded labour is one of the most pernicious modern forms of slavery. In the vast majority of cases it is due to people not selling themselves but selling their children (or having their children taken from them). Most bonded labourers are young women or girls who made no voluntary choice to become slaves. More information is available here. Everybody should be very wary of trying to justify the practice of bonded labour, even though the idea of "working off one's debt" can sound appealing. The existence of any form of slavery is an affront to human dignity and if your interpretation of the Bible justifies it, then it's a good reason to abandon Christianity. This message has been edited by mick, 08-20-2005 04:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
There is no doubt about the meaning of the word "slavery"; according to the Oxford English dictionary:
If after reading this whole thread, you can't understand that the word slavery has more definitions than the one that you would find in the Oxford dictionary, then I can't help you to understand my point of view on it. I even posted links to other definitions. Words change over time, and the current definition does not entirely reprsent the meaning of the word slavery, or slave as it appears in the bible. There were many ways, and reasons a person could become a slave, and the law of the OT seems to protect all forms of that. Even though repeatedly I have mentioned, I am in no way for slavery, people still persist to think I am. There is a clear difference between slavery of the bible, which has many definitions, and slvaery of every other culture and time. I am trying to understand why a loving God would condone slavery. It either has to make sense, or then the OT is not entirely accurate. I did not find God through the OT, but through the Holy Spirit, and my 2 basic laws in life are to love God, and love others as I love myself. If it doesn't some how conform to those rules, then to me, it is not of God. At this point in time, I do not feel like slavery follows those rules at all, so I am against it completely. What we don't understand is the time that all of that took place, and how the rules that God supposedly gave us about slavery was a radical departure from everything of the day. Rights of a slave were approaching equal rights, and the Hebrews were told by God to treat them good, and with love, and to not oppress them. They were even told to free the Hebrew slaves after a crtain period of time, and send them on their way with supplys, and gifts. To me this was a stepping stone to Christ, where the rules Christ laid down would seem to say, slavery should not exist, even though the NT mentions it. I also do not understand the timing of everything, but it was so long ago, I don't think it should concern me all that much, but I do find it interesting. Knowing God the way I know him, or perceive him, and what he has done in my life, I have a hard time understanding may things in the OT. But that just may be my own lack of perception of the time, and the plan that God has for us. Slavery has a bad reputation in history, and to me is unthinkable. I don't think I will ever understand ones desire to own a slave. But as I study the OT, and take all the rules and laws of God into account, I can't see being a slave in the OT as being all that bad. To us some of those rules seem bad, and they are, but back then, it just might not have seemed that bad. If you read this thread at all, you would have seen me make comparisons to how we think about the OT, and ancient times, to how people of 2000 years from now think of how we live now. WE just might be considered barbaric, in the future, and as we live now, it will be unthinkable to live like this 2000 years from now. That is why myself and others say that it is relative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I'm saying eye for an eye and hate thy enemy(which is what caused the enslavement of other peoples) is wrong because Jesus Christ said it was.
Read Matthew 5 if you don't believe. Are you saying Christ is wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Jesus came to fulfill the law, not change it, what does that mean exactly?
And in no place in this discussion did I say eye for and eye was ok for today. What I did say is that some of the justifications that we now believe to be ok, might not be 2000 years from now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I can see where you're coming from.
My friend said this: "If God told the people back then they can't have slaves they wouldve said no(in better words than he said)" He said it was always God's plan to end slavery but he had to do it gradually, and he finally ended it with Jesus Christ. I still believe that sin that is sin now was and will always be sin.I think slavery has always been sin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Chris Porteus writes: ... it was always God's plan to end slavery but he had to do it gradually.... Yes, I think that is what riVeRraT has been getting at, but it doesn't make much sense. Murder was banned outright. Theft was banned outright. Adultery was banned outright. Would your friend say, "If God told the people back then they can't commit murder they would've said no"? Or, "If God told the people back then they can't steal they would've said no"? Or, "If God told the people back then they can't commit adultery they would've said no"? God didn't make laws based on what His people were willing to accept. He made them based on what is right and wrong. Slavery is wrong. That is why I conclude that the laws allowing slavery were made by men, not God. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
I'm not sure if anyone has called attention to this passage since I have not read the whole thread, but I think that this passage is very important to understanding slavery in the Old Testament.
In Matthew 19, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees about divorce, and says that it is not lawful to divorce your wife for "any and every reason." But the Pharisees argue back:
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. According to this, God did not think it was the time to try and change the human customs regarding divorce, because the hearts of men were hard in this society. Now think about this: what was more ingrained into the Hebrew society: divorce or slavery? I think that slavery would be more integrated into the lives and society and economics of these people. Therefore it would be even harder to change then divorce. And if they were not ready to change divorce, they were certainly not ready to change slavery. So, when the Bible talks about "rules on how to properly own slaves," it does not imply that slavery is ok for every society. It is simply a compromise between the moral ideals of God and the consequences of the free will of rebellious human beings. The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
quote: Notice that Jesus says divorce is wrong - i.e. it is adultery. Moses "permitting" divorce doesn't make it right. It's just men rewriting God's laws to suit themselves. Similarly, Moses "permitting" slavery is a perversion of God's laws. (Notice also that divorce involves throwing a woman out into the street, where she might starve. On the other hand, riVeRraT has been trying to suggest that slavery was for the economic benefit of the slaves.) People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
You're right Ringo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
My friend almost had me but you're right God doesn't submit to men let alone sinners.
Thanks for that post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Do you agree with the ten commandments?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024