Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is Slavery Moral?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="2PhiloVoid" data-source="post: 72856816" data-attributes="member: 167101"><p><span style="color: #0000ff"> <span style="color: #000000">No, my definition is meant to pertain to non-Hebrews/non-Jews, too. That's what my use of the word <strong>"other"</strong> is supposed to imply in my definition. But, if you don't think that term alone is clear enough, then let me edit the previous definition. Does the following rework of the definition read better for you?</span></span></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: #000000">A social and economic arrangement of and by ancient Israelites during the first millennium B.C.E. in which servitude was instituted within Israelite society and legally imposed in binding fashion by advantaged Israelite persons upon other disadvantaged persons, <strong>of either Hebrew or foreign birth</strong>, the process of which usually involved either a voluntary contractual agreement with certain terms of limitation between a master and a potential servant/slave, or an involuntary imposition of indefinite servitude that may have come as an outcome of capture in warfare or as a penalty due to criminal activity.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"> <span style="color: #000000">I don't know. You'd probably have to ask Him. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> I'm guessing that the modern notion of Human Rights and/or U.S. Civil Rights, where human beings are assumed to be "equal" in the eyes of the law, didn't make headlines back then in the day because the Old Testament has this idea in it that those who resist God and remain morally corrupt pagans actually lose some of their rights and value as human beings along the way. However, if we look closely at the Old Testament, I think we can see vestiges of Positive Rights, and a little bit of Negative Rights tucked in there as well, but the language is mostly couched in terms of social responsibility as a requirement for proactively caring for other people in Israelite society. It was much more than simply live and let live. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: #000000">Here too, on this point, I think if we take the whole corpus of O.T. Law, we'll see that there are firm limitations in the Law that essentially disallow some kind of "beatings free-for-all" of slaves of any kind by Hebrew masters. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: #000000">Well, I can't think of a verse in the N.T. that directly 'disallows' slavery in total, but I can think of some that, if adhered to, would put a firm limitation on how slavery can be structured and enforced. Why would we expect the N.T. to have such a verse if 1) Slavery was basically axiomatic among many peoples in the 1st century (e.g. the Roman Empire!!!), and 2) Jesus did not primarily institute the Church and Christian faith to serve as a vehicle by which to effect a World Social Revolution and/or the immediate eradication of all human sin. I guess if a person is Post-millennial in their approach to Christian Eschatology, he might think Christianity is supposed to renovate the entire world. But if we stick with the other traditions of Christian Eschatology such as Premillenialism, Amillenialism, for that kind of social change to happen, Satan would have to be completely defrocked and removed from having any power whatsoever in the world. Otherwise, if Satan is still here and a power for us to contend with (and I think he is), we human beings are just whistling dixie if and when we entertain our vision(s) for achieving a worldwide political utopia. </span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #000000">But, here's something to think about. Jesus said in <strong>Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 22:25-27</strong>:</span></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: #000000"> 25 But Jesus called them to <em>Himself</em> and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Of course, there's also that little bit where Jesus told His disciples to "love their enemies." As far as I can tell, Jesus wasn't saying that as a "mere suggestion."</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">So, these verses alone pretty much rule out God's stamp of approval upon any idea that, at the least, Christians have "a right" to own or master other Christians, especially if those Christians are actually slaves in the local economy; neither should they be treating them harshly. And come to think of it, these commands given by Jesus very much reflect what Moses(?) told the Israelites about how they were to generally treat well their fellow Hebrew brethren; <u>Moses also told them about the requirement to treat well and not oppress friendly foreigners who sojourned in and throughout the land of Israel.</u></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: #000000">Ok. No problem. Ask what you want to ask...<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="2PhiloVoid, post: 72856816, member: 167101"] [COLOR=#0000ff] [COLOR=#000000]No, my definition is meant to pertain to non-Hebrews/non-Jews, too. That's what my use of the word [B]"other"[/B] is supposed to imply in my definition. But, if you don't think that term alone is clear enough, then let me edit the previous definition. Does the following rework of the definition read better for you?[/COLOR][/COLOR] [INDENT][COLOR=#0000ff][COLOR=#000000]A social and economic arrangement of and by ancient Israelites during the first millennium B.C.E. in which servitude was instituted within Israelite society and legally imposed in binding fashion by advantaged Israelite persons upon other disadvantaged persons, [B]of either Hebrew or foreign birth[/B], the process of which usually involved either a voluntary contractual agreement with certain terms of limitation between a master and a potential servant/slave, or an involuntary imposition of indefinite servitude that may have come as an outcome of capture in warfare or as a penalty due to criminal activity.[/COLOR][/COLOR] [/INDENT] [COLOR=#0000ff] [COLOR=#000000]I don't know. You'd probably have to ask Him. ;) I'm guessing that the modern notion of Human Rights and/or U.S. Civil Rights, where human beings are assumed to be "equal" in the eyes of the law, didn't make headlines back then in the day because the Old Testament has this idea in it that those who resist God and remain morally corrupt pagans actually lose some of their rights and value as human beings along the way. However, if we look closely at the Old Testament, I think we can see vestiges of Positive Rights, and a little bit of Negative Rights tucked in there as well, but the language is mostly couched in terms of social responsibility as a requirement for proactively caring for other people in Israelite society. It was much more than simply live and let live. [/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff] [COLOR=#000000]Here too, on this point, I think if we take the whole corpus of O.T. Law, we'll see that there are firm limitations in the Law that essentially disallow some kind of "beatings free-for-all" of slaves of any kind by Hebrew masters. [/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff] [COLOR=#000000]Well, I can't think of a verse in the N.T. that directly 'disallows' slavery in total, but I can think of some that, if adhered to, would put a firm limitation on how slavery can be structured and enforced. Why would we expect the N.T. to have such a verse if 1) Slavery was basically axiomatic among many peoples in the 1st century (e.g. the Roman Empire!!!), and 2) Jesus did not primarily institute the Church and Christian faith to serve as a vehicle by which to effect a World Social Revolution and/or the immediate eradication of all human sin. I guess if a person is Post-millennial in their approach to Christian Eschatology, he might think Christianity is supposed to renovate the entire world. But if we stick with the other traditions of Christian Eschatology such as Premillenialism, Amillenialism, for that kind of social change to happen, Satan would have to be completely defrocked and removed from having any power whatsoever in the world. Otherwise, if Satan is still here and a power for us to contend with (and I think he is), we human beings are just whistling dixie if and when we entertain our vision(s) for achieving a worldwide political utopia. [/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000]But, here's something to think about. Jesus said in [B]Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 22:25-27[/B]:[/COLOR] [INDENT][COLOR=#000000] 25 But Jesus called them to [I]Himself[/I] and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” [/COLOR][/INDENT] [COLOR=#000000]Of course, there's also that little bit where Jesus told His disciples to "love their enemies." As far as I can tell, Jesus wasn't saying that as a "mere suggestion." So, these verses alone pretty much rule out God's stamp of approval upon any idea that, at the least, Christians have "a right" to own or master other Christians, especially if those Christians are actually slaves in the local economy; neither should they be treating them harshly. And come to think of it, these commands given by Jesus very much reflect what Moses(?) told the Israelites about how they were to generally treat well their fellow Hebrew brethren; [U]Moses also told them about the requirement to treat well and not oppress friendly foreigners who sojourned in and throughout the land of Israel.[/U][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff] [COLOR=#000000]Ok. No problem. Ask what you want to ask...:cool:[/COLOR][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is Slavery Moral?
Top
Bottom