Slavery

[neocon]

I get the idea from my Bible reading that the obcession of modern Western Culture with absolute legal equality is out of step with Scripture. It strikes me that the Bible assumes inequality- a society where some are masters and others servants as the norm.

Thoughts?

 

[psychedelicist]

Slavery as they had it then is not quite the same thing as our slavery.

When they talk about slavery in the bible they refer to indentured servitude, not like buying and selling people to work for you.

 

[Cerberus~]

It doesn't surprise me that a 2000 year old book is out of step with the times.

 

[Lifesaver]

Absolutely; the ideal of "equality" is a modern invention. Christianity has always defended social inequality, which is what exists in reality.
Not, however, slavery, which violates natural law and human dignity. It was tolerated, together with other wrong things, before Christ, provided that it was done in a more humane way.
However, once Christianity was well-estabilished, slavery gradually ceased to exist. The Middle Ages were free from slaves in Europe. Slavery only returned in the Renaissance, which cultivated many Pagan values from Antiquity.

 

[neocon]

hmmm, need to study some history folks.

 

[Harlan Norris]

Well it certainly does say that in the old testament. But in the new it states that we are to love our neighbor as ourself. So it appears that there is a contrdiction. I believe that there are two sets of rules. Let me explain. I believe that the affairs of the world are the will of God, but we as God fearing Christians are forbidden to partake of some things. Even in Proverbs there is a passage about working a man without just payment. I don't have my Bible handy, but I know it's there. So even in old testament times unfair labor practices were forbidden. This does not mean they didn't occour. In order to teach them the error of their ways, God placed the children of Isreal in bondage for 400 years in Egypt. This experience was bad enough that they never forgot it. They did not as a group though, repent and sin no more.Those who did obey God were blessed for their faith. The rest, sadly were not.

 

[bryanac625]

I get the idea from my Bible reading that the obcession of modern Western Culture with absolute legal equality is out of step with Scripture. It strikes me that the Bible assumes inequality- a society where some are masters and others servants as the norm.

Thoughts?

Well... are you willing to be a slave yourself? Are you willing to allow your wife or daughter become some other man's slave and be forced to obey his sexual commands?

 

[freewilly]

When they talk about slavery in the bible they refer to indentured servitude, not like buying and selling people to work for you.

that is not quite the truth, it does indeed talk of selling and willing people to others, slaves for life and beyond.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I get the idea from my Bible reading that the obcession of modern Western Culture with absolute legal equality is out of step with Scripture. It strikes me that the Bible assumes inequality- a society where some are masters and others servants as the norm.

Thoughts?

I would say that you are missing the sentiment; that regardless of one's position or possession, one can love, serve with purpose and know God.
Consider that a condensed paraphrase.

 

[Ledifni]

The Middle Ages were free from slaves in Europe.

What? Are you kidding? What do you think serfs were?

 

[tocis]

Thoughts?

A literal reading of the bible indeeds creates the impression that slavery (or inequality, to contain ourselves to a level that's not all that disgusting) is okay with that christian faith.
Luckily, not every christian builds his or her faith on the assumed literal truth of that book, but is willing to concede that the truth in there may well be metaphorical.

All my personal opinion of course. No offense meant.

 

[Lifesaver]

Inequality is not only acceptable, it is desirable. Men are all different, both in their physical and spiritual characteristics; from that inequality naturally follows.

What cannot happen are men lack the essential natural rights of mankind, such as what happens in slavery, or in abject conditions of poverty. But there is absolutely no problem with inequality in itself.

So unnatural and harmful equality is, that all attempts to enforce it invariably lead to a terrible state of affairs.

 

[gwenmead]

I suspect that the Bible reflects the cultural contexts of the times and places in which it was written. Coming from a context in which slavery, social inequality, and rigid class hierarchy were the norm, it makes sense to me that such would be expressed, even supported, in scripture.

Yes, social equality is a very modern concept. Yet if I am not mistaken, it can be justified using Biblical references too. I'm thinking of the abolitionist movement of the 19th century, for instance, and how important the role of faith was to many participants.

Argh, I don't want to dig further into this because I don't have sources handy and that bugs me. :/

 

[The Seeker]

I get the idea from my Bible reading that the obcession of modern Western Culture with absolute legal equality is out of step with Scripture. It strikes me that the Bible assumes inequality- a society where some are masters and others servants as the norm.

Thoughts?

I agree, that's what happens when you let other people tell you how to think, they use it to their advantage.

 

[The Seeker]

Inequality is not only acceptable, it is desirable. Men are all different, both in their physical and spiritual characteristics; from that inequality naturally follows.

What cannot happen are men lack the essential natural rights of mankind, such as what happens in slavery, or in abject conditions of poverty. But there is absolutely no problem with inequality in itself.

So unnatural and harmful equality is, that all attempts to enforce it invariably lead to a terrible state of affairs.

Equal does not mean exactly the same, it means of equal value. Freedom can only be meaningful if it is accompanied by equality.

 

[jayem]

Yes, social equality is a very modern concept. Yet if I am not mistaken, it can be justified using Biblical references too. I'm thinking of the abolitionist movement of the 19th century, for instance, and how important the role of faith was to many participants.

But to be more precise, the religious background of the American abolitionist movement primarily consisted of what would be considered "liberal" denominations--especially Quakers, Unitarians, and New England Congregationalists. You are aware that the largest "conservative" Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptists, were founded precisely because they supported white supremacy. (And to their credit, they have admitted their error and apologized.)

 

[gwenmead]

Inequality is not only acceptable, it is desirable. Men are all different, both in their physical and spiritual characteristics; from that inequality naturally follows.

What cannot happen are men lack the essential natural rights of mankind, such as what happens in slavery, or in abject conditions of poverty. But there is absolutely no problem with inequality in itself.

So unnatural and harmful equality is, that all attempts to enforce it invariably lead to a terrible state of affairs.

I am going to take a leap of faith here and hope that what you are saying is not so much that inequality is a natural, acceptable, OK thing, but that individual variation is.

I will quote Madeline L'Engle's 'Wrinkle in Time': "Like and equal are not the same thing at all." By extrapolation, I suppose that "unalike" and "unequal" are not the same thing, either, at least in terms of what human rights advocates have been seeking over the past 300 or so years.

I can agree that it is futile to assume that everyone is cut from a cookie-cutter stamp, with the same needs, wants, desires, personalities, and so on; that doesn't reflect reality at all. At the same time, I cannot advocate inequality as something truly positive. It certainly happens; it may be part of human nature to let it happen, for whatever reason. But to assume that inequality is natural runs the risk, I think, of allowing things like discrimination, sexism, racism and the like to be accepted willingly by any given culture.

I hope this is just an issue of semantics. Thanks for reading.

 

[Lifesaver]

Freedom can only be meaningful if it is accompanied by equality.

Not at all. Rights and benefits should be given to those of different qualities. A teacher, or a professor, has many rights the students don't, and shouldn't, have. He is, in the classroom, the authority and they are submitted to him.

Likewise, a man and a woman, an elder and a youth, an uneducated man and a scholar, a layman and a priest, an army officer and a civilian, all have (or should have) different rights and occupy different places in the many hierarchies of society.

The modern notion of equality as a goal, and of hierarchy as an evil, is totally wrong. And to impose it, one has to take freedom away.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I've got a question for the non-believers then:
Is the rich man that has the high powered job, the mansion, all the men's toys and wild nightlife really free?
That was a rhetorical question BTW.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Not at all. Rights and benefits should be given to those of different qualities. A teacher, or a professor, has many rights the students don't, and shouldn't, have. He is, in the classroom, the authority and they are submitted to him.

Likewise, a man and a woman, an elder and a youth, an uneducated man and a scholar, a layman and a priest, an army officer and a civilian, all have (or should have) different rights and occupy different places in the many hierarchies of society.

The modern notion of equality as a goal, and of hierarchy as an evil, is totally wrong. And to impose it, one has to take freedom away.

Right. And my place is above yours, because as an American, chances are good that I'm richer and better educated than somebody from Brazil.