Let's hear it for SLAVERY . . . . . . . . or not

[Belk]

Nm

 

[lawtonfogle]

Actually, Deism teaches that God is impersonal and is not involved with His creation. The Founders routinely acknowledged that God's hand was on America and relied on His providence.

Such as? While they may have done so in their own private lives... I don't remember seeing anything like this is the Constitution...

Actually, that's exactly what Christianity teaches.

What rights are there then? Life? Nope. Freedom? Nope. Property? Nope. Happiness? Nope. Bodily integrity? Nope. Privacy? Nope.

Um... the list is running a bit short... I guess it is in the fact that all humans are said to have the same rights... which are exactly none.

<staff edit>

 

[atomweaver]

Actually, Deism teaches that God is impersonal and is not involved with His creation.

The quote "Being endowed by their Creator" is perfectly congruous with such an impersonal God. An 'endowment' in this usage refers to innate capacities of a group; mankind.

The Founders routinely acknowledged that God's hand was on America and relied on His providence.

Perhaps true for some, but not true of the majority of the Founders. Sorry, while I meant for this to relate back to slavery, its growing into a separate topic. If you'd like to continue the discussion, we could start a thread in American Politics. If not, I'll let you have the last word in your next reply...

Back on-topic

Actually, that's exactly what Christianity teaches.

...and how then does bondslavery or Roman slavery reconcile with that? Same question for the divine right of kings? 1 Samuel 15; The Bible doesn't say Saul was made king because of the acquiescence of the governed. He was king because he was anointed by God. Same question, again, for the Christian submission/subservience of the wife to the husband? Each of those are clear examples of Biblically-mandated inequality.

<staff edit>

 

[Maren]

My story is straight, thank you. In the instances where I was talking about bond servitude, it was and still is bond servitude. Don't tell me that my story isn't straight just because you can't read.

I can read just fine, thank you. The fact that you can't seem to argue this point without resorting to personal attacks (such as calling me dishonest in the last post) tends to support the idea that you have no real argument.

The fact is that in English the commonly used definitions of Bond Servitude and Indentured Servitude are pretty much identical. In fact, historical texts recount how Southern slavery started as "lifetime bond servitude". Further, you have completely ignored that the Bible allowed for slavery of non-Jews.

No, "the South" was not Christian. Regions and places cannot be Christian.

And this is nothing more than semantic quibbling (again) on your part. I think it is well understood that by "the South" I meant the people of the South and not the land itself.

Why should he? What's the matter with someone agreeing to work for someone for a specified period of time?

Again, as you keep completely ignoring, Paul was talking of Roman slavery. What you attempt to claim as "Biblical slavery" did not exist in the New Testament era as they lived under Roman law. Therefore, if the Bible does not mean to condone slavery you would expect Paul, especially when talking of slaves obeying their masters, to at least negatively comment on the type of slavery they were under.

 

[Verv]

So morality is relative?

No; morality is absolute.

The highest morality in the time before Christ was the preservation of the Law as the survival of Israel required this to maintain their unity so that they would not be erased.

However, the highest morality in the time from Christ's birth onward is the following of the Spirit of the Lord which is, by far, less legalistic.

Israel was the cradle of Christ who came to bring unto us God's will to all the people of the world as the Messiah.

Criticizing the institution of slavery is like criticizing prostitution...

Of course, it is not good; however, it could not so easily be abolished. In fact, slavery has not been abolished and now only has changed into a form where people are forced to perform sexual bondage all across the globe --

""estimated 600,000 to 820,000 men, women, and children [are] trafficked across international borders each year, approximately 70 percent are women and girls and up to 50 percent are minors. The data also illustrates that the majority of transnational victims are trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation."[20]"

Somoene has already posted the quote where Paul speaks that naturally all slaves should seek their freedom;

I will also submit Mark 10:17-31 into it, concerning the infamous words of 'sooner a camel will enter through a needle's eye than a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of God."

The relevance of which is, of course, that one is certainly a rich man if you are an owner of other men.

That would cause one to desire inherently to end the slavery that exists across the world.

 

[nolongerhome]

No; morality is absolute.

The highest morality in the time before Christ was the preservation of the Law as the survival of Israel required this to maintain their unity so that they would not be erased.

However, the highest morality in the time from Christ's birth onward is the following of the Spirit of the Lord which is, by far, less legalistic.

If you don't see how ascribing two different "absolute moralities" to different time periods renders neither absolute, I'm not sure there is much point talking about it further. Also, the post I replied to contained you saying that we shouldn't judge old testament times by 21st century morality. Is that the same as the morality of the last 2000 years, or is it different again?

 

[Verv]

If you don't see how ascribing two different "absolute moralities" to different time periods renders neither absolute, I'm not sure there is much point talking about it further. Also, the post I replied to contained you saying that we shouldn't judge old testament times by 21st century morality. Is that the same as the morality of the last 2000 years, or is it different again?

Morality is absolute; however, it changed with the advent of Christ.

So you could say morality is relative... It changed once in history.

Prior to Christ, the world operated on a different basis.

After Christ, of course, morality is still absolute.

The world was not ready for Christian morality until the 1st century AD.

Both the creations of the Greek and Roman Empires made it possible as we can look at Rome and see that there were even Jews like Paul who were Roman citizens; the concept of the state embracing more than one sort of ethnic group was revolutionary and helped create a situation where we would be more likely to live in more stable and sustainable peace with one another.

 

[Nooj]

<staff edit>

Except slaves (particularly the slaves under the Roman system that Paul is talking about) did not "contract" to become slaves, nor were they slaves for a "specified period of time".

Yes, actually, they did. That's the whole point of being a bondslave: that after your time of service is up, you can choose to continue in service to that person or family.

Roman masters were under no obligation to free their slaves. Slaves did not sign a contract saying 'I'll be your slave for 20 years, then you let me go.' There was no contractual system of slavery in the Roman Empire.

Have you read the bits about foreign slaves being permanent slaves ('bond-slaves' and temporary slavery is only for the Israelites) and/or the accounts of mass-enslavement in the Bible?

So how did you come to the conclusion that the Romans were Israelites?

I don't understand your question, because I didn't claim the Romans were Israelites or vice versa. It was rather opaque wording you used there.

I can only assume you're asking me what evidence I have that the Israelite institution of slavery included mass-enslavement and permanent slavery. You still haven't answered my question, I might add, but I've taken the liberty of quoting the relevant sections for you:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

10 "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.

Leviticus 25:39-46

39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Whatever. I'm not going to argue this with someone who neither knows nor cares what the Bible says.

Two points, the Bible has nothing to do with the topic of whether Roman slavery was contractual. Second, your response would be taken as a concession of the point in most forums I go to.

Actually, there is a very big difference.

Apparently, the good Christian understands the cosmetic differences well enough, but still doesn't address the issue that all forms of slavery are predicated on the idea that you can make humans into property. There's no difference in that respect between chattel slavery and the slavery practiced by Christians, Muslims and Jews of ancient times.

And that difference is? Because I can't see any difference in the core idea of a person being property.

 

[Belk]

Morality is absolute; however, it changed with the advent of Christ.

So you could say morality is relative... It changed once in history.

Prior to Christ, the world operated on a different basis.

After Christ, of course, morality is still absolute.

The world was not ready for Christian morality until the 1st century AD.

Both the creations of the Greek and Roman Empires made it possible as we can look at Rome and see that there were even Jews like Paul who were Roman citizens; the concept of the state embracing more than one sort of ethnic group was revolutionary and helped create a situation where we would be more likely to live in more stable and sustainable peace with one another.

Your killing me here Verv! Absolute morality, but it changes. So, now that the new and improved absolute morality is in effect, is the old absolute morality still valid?

 

[tanzanos]

Weekend warriors, couch soldiers, and holier than thou bible thumpers have something in common; They have no clue when it comes to reality! Have any slavery proponents seen the effects of beatings? Have they ever been denied their freedom? Have they ever been sold as property? I think not and they (proponents of slavery) will do well to adhere to the norms and moral values of the civilised world!

 

[Smidlee]

It's interesting the phases "holier than thou" is mention since I was thinking about this very point. This phases is find in Isaiah 65:5 which is referred to a "... rebellious people, which walketh in the way that was not good , after their own thoughts." Sounds familiar?

How did God judged this rebellious people? He judge them by letting them becoming Babylon servants/slaves and letting Jerusalem to be destroyed. After 70 years were up most of the Jews did not return to Jerusalem which lead to the events in Esther. (Joshua made an agreement with Gibeonites which became Israel slaves. Here is another example Of God using one nation to judge another.)

It is interesting to note that before Onesimus became a christian he rebelled against being a slave of Philemon but afterwards return back to Philemon as a saved man. There are hints that Onesimus when he lefted Philemon he didn't go empty handed.