mdarus

I don't think "seems likely" is synonymous with "inevitable" or "predestined". I think you misquoted me.

One of the age-old debates in Christianity is how to make free will and God's choice jibe. The term, "predestination" carries with it a lot of semantic baggage. I will try to avoid using it to avoid misunderstanding. One of the things that makes it challenging is that the Bible affirms both. Some have postulated a theological debate among the biblical authors. Personally, I enjoy affirming both and denying there is any contradiction. I suspect there is something about the middle eastern mindset that makes this more possible than for us westerners. In a forum dominated by the rules of logic I fear my position will not be popular. But then, if I wanted to be popular, why would I post Christian ideas on Infidel?

Ubercat

Ok. Can you back up your denial of a contradiction with any evidence, or logic? Are you admitting that there is no logic to it?

-Ubercat

andrewcriddle

Until relatively recent times in Western countries such as England one could be sent to a 'debtor's prison' for defaulting on a civil debt.

Debtors in contemporary democracies are treated leniently by historical standards.

In some 'third world' countries such as India 'debt slevery' still exists although officially illegal. (A 'debt slave' is typically say a poor farmer who has to help a rich farmer with the harvest year after year without pay in order to meet the interest on the loan provided for his child's wedding many years ago.)

The line between the harsher ways of dealing with debt and the more humane forms of unfree labour is sometimes blurred.

Andrew Criddle

mdarus

I fear we are highjacking a thread but in answer to your question,

1. I am not prepared to reconcile free will and predestination. I can do it for my own satisfaction but I doubt that I can solve it for anyone else.
2. I do not admit there is no logic to it. There may be. I am better at theology than logic but see 1 above.:huh:
3. The evidence can be a bit overwhelming if both the bibilical hermeneutics and historical debates are included.
4. I am content to live as though it all depends on me and occasionally rest on faith that God has things under control.

Toto

All the more reason to think that the ancients would have seen a clear distinction between slavery and modern credit card debts.

NOGO

The problem with all of this is that most slaves became slaves without owing anything to anyone. One cannot define slavery in ancient times as a person with debts. It simply does not fit the facts.

andrewcriddle

Ancient Israel was not an Empire acquiring vast quantities of slaves by conquest in the way ancient Rome did.

Probably most people became slaves in Israel either by birth or through poverty. (See Leviticus 35:39 onwards.)

Andrew Criddle

mdarus

I don't find the argument that "slavery was not as bad back then so it was OK" as entirely convincing or getting to the main point but I do find the issue interesting. This is to say, I don't want to be misunderstood as justifying slavery, but...

I wonder what the alternative to slavery was? If one tribe conquered another hostile tribe, what were the options? Sign a peace treaty? Let everyone go home on the promise they won't do it again? Cut off one arm so they won't do it again? Was it self-preservation that required you to subjugate your enemies?

And what were the economic alternatives to selling yourself into slavery for your debts? Giving up all your livestock and possessions resulting in starvation for you and your family? A debtors prison would also be a death sentence. The Government isn't going to feed you.

I also wonder about the employment parallels. Were slaves the equivalent of hourly workers? How would the pyramids be built without workers? What would have been different about their living conditions if they were paid laborers? Since they were provided room and board (at least) were they then considered paid laborers? We don't consider migrant workers in Mexico as slaves but this is their situation. All they end up with after the company store is room and board, no education for their children, and no opportunity to get out of the grind. OK, maybe they are slaves even though the get paid every week????

NOGO

I never said ancient Israel was to be equated to Rome as far as the number of slaves. But still Israelites aquired slaves through war as many passages in the bible atest to and also by purchasing them from other nations as Lev 25:35 and so on, plainly says.

Not so.
Leviticus 25 says exactly the opposite.

Leviticus 25:39-40
If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service.
He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee.

Lev 25: 42
'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale.

It says that poor Israelites that cannot pay their debts can be taken as servants until the seventh year when they will be free BUT they are not to be treated as slaves nor sold.

It goes on to say that non-israelites can be bought and sold as slaves. It also says that these are PERMANENT slaves which can be left as inheritance to one's children.

This effectively answers achristianbeliever's question. He did not want to hear the answer but it is in black and white in Leviticus 25.

In conclusion
you shall not subject him to a slave's service.
makes a clear distinction between servitude for a debt and REAL slavery.
One is limited to six years while the other is permanent.
One is "as a hired man" while the other is a "slave's service".

andrewcriddle

Minor clarification.

The Jubilee in Leviticus is supposed to occur every 50 years. These are different rules than the seven years service as a slave in the 'Covenant Code' in Exodus 21-23. On average one is envisaged in Leviticus as serving 25 years before regaining freedom.

Andrew Criddle