Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[AV1611VET]

I can make this very simple. Is owning another person as property moral?

You decide.

1 Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Bondservanthood in the Old Testament was a picture of our relationship with Jesus Christ.

Paul starts his epistles out by calling himself a "servant" -- never a "slave".

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

The King James Bible does not recognize the term "slavery" as a viable alternative to "servanthood."

 

[juvenissun]

No, it doesn't. The text clearly says that if a master beat his slave with a rod and that slave did not die within two days then the master was not to be punished because that slave was his property. The text is not merely describing what happened, as you are trying to claim, it is God saying that a master could do this.

No the Scripture does not imply that.

 

[juvenissun]

You decide.

1 Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Bondservanthood in the Old Testament was a picture of our relationship with Jesus Christ.

Paul starts his epistles out by calling himself a "servant" -- never a "slave".

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

The King James Bible does not recognize the term "slavery" as a viable alternative to "servanthood."

I heard a sermon which said that the word servant is modernized. The original word means slave. Is that true?

 

[juvenissun]

Well, where in the text does it say that non-Hebrew slaves could voluntarily leave the service of their masters? I don't think you're honestly thinking through what the whole "property" thing actually means. Someone's property does not get to decide that it is not property. You are reading the morality you want to see into the text where it is clearly absent.

Every seventh year, any slave can go free. Every fiftieth year, all debts (include slaves) go free.

 

[Armoured]

If you treat the person well, it is absolutely moral.

Define "treat the person well"

 

[juvenissun]

I would say the treatment of another person is what could be immoral or immoral, which I recall was the other posters point as well and is clearly a point made repeatedly in the Bible. The particular contract itself is just a contract. While we have laws to protect employees today, their treatment could still be either immoral or moral and that independent of the employee contract.

The abuses of slavery can be horrific and clearly immoral. No one here is attempting to justify immorality. Just point out that slavery has been around since the beginning of men coming together in larger communities and still exists today. We have a huge issue with sex slavery in this country right now and globally. And that is just one form of slavery existing today, as I said before - though obviously the sex slavery is far worst, clearly immoral both at the core and in the treatment of the slaves. That form of slavery today is clearly more abusive than probably most of our work environments. But that does not mean that all of us are being treated with the dignity a human deserves at work (morally). So, again the other poster makes a point that not all forms of slavery are necessarily immoral activities for the "owner" even if the owner is a corporation (unless it is Monsanto, then it is immoral - :0 )

Human relations are never as simple as we might like to think - which is why even today many people consider both employment contracts and welfare to be forms of slavery, with the later in these days typically abusive for those so enslaved. And do not think it necessarily wrong to view those things as forms of slavery.

Today, the relationship between employer and employees could not be worse. Everything is money oriented, there is absolutely no loyalty involved in the deal (contract). Nevertheless, at least some classical Japanese companies still try to emphasize the concept of loyalty among employees. That is why some of their products are far better in quality than others. This is exactly what the modern industry needs to learn from the slavery system. Master (employer) needs to love his slaves (employees), and slaves (employees) need to be loyal to their master (employer). This is God's intention in facilitating this system, and it is absolutely beautiful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every seventh year, any slave can go free. Every fiftieth year, all debts (include slaves) go free.

I would like to see the verses that claim that. From my understanding that only applies to Hebrew indentured male servant type slaves. Slavery of non-Hebrews was for life. And the Hebrews could also sell their daughters into slavery and I do not think that there was any out for them either.

 

[juvenissun]

Define "treat the person well"

Love.
Do I need to define that?

 

[juvenissun]

I would like to see the verses that claim that. From my understanding that only applies to Hebrew indentured male servant type slaves. Slavery of non-Hebrews was for life.

This is fine from God's point of view at that time. And the spiritual meaning of that is very rich and is absolutely correct today.

And the Hebrews could also sell their daughters into slavery and I do not think that there was any out for them either.

I think I missed this one. Don't know what to say about it now.

 

[Armoured]

Love.
Do I need to define that?

Given that there are people who beat the snot out of those they claim to love, yeah, some specifics might be a good idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

I heard a sermon which said that the word servant is modernized. The original word means slave. Is that true?

If so, the KJB corrected it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Today, the relationship between employer and employees could not be worse. Everything is money oriented, there is absolutely no loyalty involved in the deal (contract). Nevertheless, at least some classical Japanese companies still try to emphasize the concept of loyalty among employees. That is why some of their products are far better in quality than others. This is exactly what the modern industry needs to learn from the slavery system. Master (employer) needs to love his slaves (employees), and slaves (employees) need to be loyal to their master (employer). This is God's intention in facilitating this system, and it is absolutely beautiful.

My contention and others agree - not that it matters - is that many employment opportunities are a form of slavery. Whether it is beautiful or not, we could speculate. I guess that it would depending on whether the employer treats employees with the dignity all humans deserve and they return same with also adding proper respect a slave should have for the master. The situation with Corporations is a bit more blurred as the slaves serve multiple masters and the masters must answer to a third party that may or may have either the organizations itself or the slaves best interest in mind. The result tends to be a break down and distancing between the masters and the slaves, which dehumanizes the whole relationship and allows both slave and master to feel less responsible toward each other as described in the above post.

 

[AV1611VET]

My contention and others agree - not that it matters - is that many employment opportunities are a form of slavery.

My contention is that self-professed "wise men" today can't tell the difference between a slave and a bondservant in the Bible.

And that doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[Jimmy D]

My contention and others agree - not that it matters - is that many employment opportunities are a form of slavery. Whether it is beautiful or not, we could speculate. I guess that it would depending on whether the employer treats employees with the dignity all humans deserve and they return same with also adding proper respect a slave should have for the master. The situation with Corporations is a bit more blurred as the slaves serve multiple masters and the masters must answer to a third party that may or may have either the organizations itself or the slaves best interest in mind. The result tends to be a break down and distancing between the masters and the slaves, which dehumanizes the whole relationship and allows both slave and master to feel less responsible toward each other as described in the above post.

A slave is not an employee. I can't believe people are actually performing these mental contortions in an attempt to justify I don't know what.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

My contention is that self-professed "wise men" today can't tell the difference between a slave and a bondservant in the Bible.

And that doesn't surprise me one bit.

Not sure anyone here is professing to be wise, but certainly some are more willing to listen to what others are saying rather than assuming they already know what is being expressed. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing. I don't always have the wisdom to shut up and listen or not saying, but I know I have that weakness. Perhaps it was not particularly wise of me to interject myself into this dialogue. It did seem to be using up too much space and was frustrating watching two people obviously BOTH missing the other's point.

I do not recall anyone confusing various forms of slavery or comparing them. I do recall myself and at least one other suggesting there are many forms and also some of us speaking in general terms about ALL forms of slavery. And I would suspect in all the various forms of slavery, including modern employment arrangements, we could find humane and inhumane treatment, good and evil. So it would important (and wise) in carrying on a conversation about abuses in slavery or what the Bible says about it, that all parties to that conversation understood whether they were speaking of some particular form and/or a particular occurrence of some form of slavery in history. Otherwise we will tend to talk past each other.

When I interjected here I felt that is what was going on. We had one person referring to the obvious and evident evils of slavery as particularly evident in especially one of the forms present in early American history; the other speaking in very broad and general terms about all forms of slavery which the first party at least partially assumed was an attempt to justify the evils that can and do exist in any such human relations. I have no stake in either side and I happen to think both sides are making erroneous statements to each other as well as in general. One because the statements are too specific about one form of slavery but attempts or at least appeared to either ignore all other forms or broadly paint them all as inherently evil or wrong. The other was speaking in a very broad sense about all forms of slavery while properly suggesting the evils/wrongs results in/comes from the human interface of slavery which this party recognizes the humans involved can choose to minimize (true in any form of slavery) and perhaps totally eliminate in some forms of slavery (company job for example). However this same party appears in being too broad as not acknowledging the depravity we clearly see in all the various forms of slavery we see now and in human history, which appeared to have been the other parties focus even if it was applied to broadly or directed against the structure rather than the people involved.

There is obviously no way to justify or suggest sex slavery is or could be "a beautiful thing", but that was not one party's position though statements made by that party could be and I think were taken that way. However, the obvious evils present in that form of slavery do not mean that the structure of all slavery is inherently evil, (company's having a employer/employee relationship for example) but that appeared to be the other's parties position, that slavery itself is evil/wrong.

So I was just hoping I could assist a little, sorry if that was not appreciated by everyone (or anyone???). Good luck to you both and cheers.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

A slave is not an employee. I can't believe people are actually performing these mental contortions in an attempt to justify I don't know what.

No one said a slave in all forms of slavery can be viewed as being an employee.

What was said is that employment could and has been viewed as another form of slavery. Not sure how old everyone here is, but most of us do not always get to work somewhere because we want to or even really, really like it, though we can lie to ourselves about it.

No, many of us work where we do because we need to or at least believe we need to in order to survive/sustain ourselves. Even a volunteer can be treated as a slave/employee, and even without any compensation there is a structure we could talk about as master/slave. Just because we use different terms does not mean something is not a form of slavery, at least not in this broad sense.

Many forms of indentured servitude could be completely voluntary on the part of the slave (note I said could be and am not considering necessity). And our jobs today, unless we work for ourselves, can actually be seen as a form of voluntary indentured servitude in that we agree to give up a specific amount of our time for some form of compensation or benefit which we desire. We obtain that benefit/desire by agreeing to work for someone else's desires/benefit, including following their rules (master/slave).

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure anyone here is professing to be wise,

They claim they are Homo sapiens, and that means "wise men."

Paul warns against doing that, as it can (and does) lead to atheism.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

In cases where it doesn't lead to atheism, it can lead to witchcraft.

wizard (n.)

early 15c., "philosopher, sage," from Middle English wys "wise" (see wise (adj.)) + -ard. Compare Lithuanian zynyste "magic," zynys "sorcerer," zyne "witch," all from zinoti "to know." The ground sense is perhaps "to know the future." The meaning "one with magical power, one proficient in the occult sciences" did not emerge distinctly until c. 1550, the distinction between philosophy and magic being blurred in the Middle Ages.

Note the similarities with science here?

If you're here any length of time, you will see these exact words used.

Note especially the preference for the term "magic" over "miracles" in these posts.

"Witch" comes from the word "to know" ... as does "science."

Many profess to know the future of the universe, and it is nowhere close to how God says it is going to end.

 

[juvenissun]

Given that there are people who beat the snot out of those they claim to love, yeah, some specifics might be a good idea.

Read I Cor. 13.
A scaled down version of it would probably be enough to a slave.

 

[juvenissun]

My contention and others agree - not that it matters - is that many employment opportunities are a form of slavery. Whether it is beautiful or not, we could speculate. I guess that it would depending on whether the employer treats employees with the dignity all humans deserve and they return same with also adding proper respect a slave should have for the master. The situation with Corporations is a bit more blurred as the slaves serve multiple masters and the masters must answer to a third party that may or may have either the organizations itself or the slaves best interest in mind. The result tends to be a break down and distancing between the masters and the slaves, which dehumanizes the whole relationship and allows both slave and master to feel less responsible toward each other as described in the above post.

Indeed. As a structure gets bigger, the relationships also get complicated.
Would the huge Kingdom of God be like that? I think it would not be. If so, how could a very big structure maintain a very simple relationship among the components?

 

[Jimmy D]

Where I live in the UK if we don't like our jobs we can leave. If you want to redefine the word slavery until it's lost all it's meaning carry on.

Would you sell your daughter into slavery? Maybe she'd thank you for saving her the trouble of filling out all those resumes and CVs.