sschlichter

in this quote, no because he is telling a parable but I do not disagree with your premise that Jesus did not make any attempt to free slaves or speak out against the practice of slavery. Paul says the same thing and only had advice for what kind of slave you should be - a good one in order to win over your master.

~Steve

Stephen T-B

It is quite clear that all those who attempt to justify the salvery that is endorsed by the Biblical writers think it is morally acceptable.

They therefore think:
1) That it is morally acceptable for one nation (the Jews) to own members of other nations (gentiles) as slaves, and when the slaves breed, to own their children as slaves, and to be able to will them to their descendants.
2) They think it is morally acceptable for a slave owner to beat his slave (being of a different clan or tribe or nation), provided he doesn't beat that slave to death.

So I ask sschlichter: does he consider 1 and 2 morally acceptable?

sschlichter

1) I belevie it is morally acceptable to allow people to sell themselves into a bond servant relationship, if they choose. I beleive it is immoral to collect slaves from conquest or kidnapping. I beleive slavery was an option for the destitute that was better than starving to death. I beleive the Torah provides laws that punish those that abuse slaves.

2) I beleive it is morally acceptable to punish. I have spanked my children. In Singapore, you will get caned if you steal. If the punishment is excessive then it is immoral. I understand that the thought of someone getting beaten (yet unharmed) is harsh to our modern senses, but the alternatives were worse. If someone does not work, they would not eat and they would starve to death. They did not have Barack Obama around to pay their bills for them. Punishment corrects behavior for the sake of the person that would not work. If a slave owner is just beating a slave because he thinks it is fun then I think it is immoral. However, the slave owner back then had the same problem, if his servants did not work then he would not eat so making it so people cannot work is not effective and this person is not only immoral but a fool and he will not have servants for long. As I mentioned a few times but have not received a reply. Abraham had slaves and you get a glimpse of their relationships. One was next in line to inherit all he owned. Was this a slave?

3) Your question is loaded with bias. You ignore the clauses about Jews being owned by foreigners. you ignore the clauses about foreigners living freely among the Jews. You ignore the clauses that explicit indicate that the practice of selling oneself into slavery is what we are talking about. You ignore the passages that outlaw the kidnapping of foreigners for slaves. I have asked 6 times to be supplied a passage that shows that the slavery that is condoned is in anyway similar to slavery in th 1700 Americans capturing and kidnapping Africans. That is immoral and is outlawed in the OT.

4) I personally would not be involved in anything similar to slavery. However, I am a product of my culture and it is naive to think that I would not see things differently if I was in a different culture.

Chili

[size="2"][QUOTE=sschlichter;5698706]

Dear Mr. sschlichter,

You are a very honorable person and much to wise to step into the argument that Johnny presents by misinterpreting the allegories of the bible wherein slavery is used to justify mere mental conflict instead of human slavery.

There is no defense for mental conflict wherein the confrontation between good and evil and right or wrong is brought to a stand out of which new insights are born.

In the allegory they are often called Hebrew and non-Hebrew to identify tied down knowledge and fleeting perception that must be brought into submission so they will belong to the essence (the eina that is driven by the heartbeat of Lord God) retained in their Tree of Kowledge and so be tied down in it there. This is based on Gen 3:6 where the woman saw that the TOK was good for gaining new knowledge instead just beating an old horse to teach him new tricks.

To call a spade a spade here I would say that Johnny is a goat humper at work in that he does not hear the voice of the master for whom these allegories could make sense at best. Worse now, even, is the fact that he wants you to step into his shoes and pick up the argument that makes him feel so good, and so wants you to join him to drive it home as best as he can. [/size="2"]

PS This is my first post and may be wrong in size.

sschlichter

[QUOTE=Chili;5699001][size="2"]apparently, I am not too wise since I am still here. It is the literal- grammatical-historical meaning that is being mis-represented here. I do not have any expectations that we are going to get to any allegorical meaning - nor should we try, IMO.

~steve

Chili

[QUOTE=sschlichter;5699057]Of course it is because it was love instead of slavery that got them thusfar and until people understand the tru power of love wherein no evil is to be found that they should never try to find or even look for evil in the inspired word . . . for if they do, it immediately is a reflection of their own mood volunteered for the rest of the world to see.

In once pointed at John 21:14 where the word agape was used to make this known of which eros is an extraction as the primary premiss for us to search for beauty in the world around us, but wherein also hate is its opposite so that we can be made wise (Gen.2:5). They are lovely passages and demand respect for our own sake.

DaMan121

Wow. A Christian moral relativist. BTW, everything else you said was equally deplorable but hilarious at the same time.

arnoldo

There also is a tendency by certain groups of people to have a strong sense of confirmation bias when examining a particular topic in the OT including slavery. Ideally there would be no slavery however when a culture existed in a primarily agricultural society human labor was greatly needed. Once industrialization began then we began to see a decline for the demand of human labor - - thus the need for slavery began to decline as well.

sschlichter

There is nothing relative about what I said. The only way it could be seen as relaitivism, is if you place your misconceptions about OT slavery on it. You can be our moral compass then. here are some questions for you.

I joined the army many years ago and signed an agreement that gave over many rights to the government. On their part, I was guaranteed room and board and medical care as needed. I was 'forced' to be trained and was punished (sometimes physically, sometimes verbally) when I screwed up. Was this slavery? If not, I joined for 3 years, how many years would it take for it to be slavery?

~Steve

sschlichter

Unfortunately, I do not beleive the practive of slavery has declined at all.

http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/