Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 09-10-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

.

Your dictionary confirms my alternative version of "Lord Jesus Christ"!

Nowhere does it say "slave-owner"...and I've already said that the word "master" carries extra baggage for us today...

Comparisons were made in the sense that we should be servants of God.

Clivedurdle · 09-10-2005, 08:21 AM

Quote:

It denotes a master, as of slaves

Sorry, ownership and mastership I see as co-terminus, would slave master saviour messiah be acceptable?

Haran · 09-10-2005, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Sorry, ownership and mastership I see as co-terminus, would slave master saviour messiah be acceptable?

I do not. And no.

Clivedurdle · 09-10-2005, 08:26 AM

Quote:

servants

And I earlier questioned the use of the term servants - did they exist in biblical times or were they actually slaves?

Quote:

The Biblical attitude toward slavery is of course one of the most profound of the many moral failures of the New Testament. Slavery is accepted by both Paul and Jesus. Explaining away this problem is an acute issue for fundamentalists, judging from its constant appearance at article sites such as this, and on boards where such things are discussed.

Wallace attempts to solve the slavery problem with two strategies. First, the old "it wasn't that bad" argument:

1. Slavery in the first century was quite different from slavery in early American history. For one thing, Roman slaves were either taken as the spoils of war or were such because they sold themselves into slavery (known as "bond-servant"). They were often well-educated (cf. Gal 3:24 in which the "tutor" or better "disciplinarian" or "guide" of the children was usually a slave). The normal word for "slave" in the New Testament is the term dou'lo", a term that in earlier centuries usually referred to one who sold himself into slavery; later on, it was used especially of those who became slaves as the spoils of war.

Wallace apparently thinks it is OK to make humans into chattel so long as they were taken in battle or came into it "voluntarily." In fact, African slaves sold in the Americas were taken in raids, wars and through sales as well, among the many methods by which they were taken.

Further, Wallace has missed a key point: being a slave was not an unlucky state affecting individual persons, but a permanent status. The children of slaves were also slaves. Thus, Romans got their slaves exactly the same way as Americans did, and there are no significant differences between the two cultures in their practice of slavery.

2. Although the masters had absolute rights over their slaves, they generally showed them respect, very unlike the South in the days of Lincoln. They often treated them with human dignity and, although they could beat them, such does not seem to be as regular a practice as it was in America. [snipped]

Wallace here has constructed a Christian fantasy world. In reality, with the exception of a minority of slaves who were educated and served as household slaves in urban areas, slavery in the Roman world was every bit as harsh as slavery in the Americas. Revolts were as common as rain among rural slaves, who lived a life of constant torture, hard work, little food, and death at a young age. Such slaves worked in the mines, fields, forests, in construction gangs, and on large estates. Slaves also rowed ships until they died, and served as gladiators in contests where a lucky slave could win wealth and fame. For the vast majority of Roman slaves, life was a living hell leading to an early death.

Clivedurdle · 09-10-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Grouping slave traders with murderers and perverts and then condemning them for not conforming to "sound doctrine" seems like a pretty strong condemnation of slave trade, and even slavery, to me.

Those who make money their God will fight hard for it...

Sorry? What exactly is the problem with a pretty strong condemnation of "even" slavery?

If the Bible does not say God's servants but God's slaves are you arguing slavery is OK?

Haran · 09-10-2005, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

If the Bible does not say God's servants but God's slaves are you arguing slavery is OK?

From what I have already written, obviously not. "Love one's neighbor as oneself" does not allow for slavery. I do not want to be a slave, therefore I would not enslave, nor would I approve of it. It is most simple to see except for those with fundamentalist interpretations who isolate individual verses from overarching themes.

Haran · 09-10-2005, 09:04 AM

Matthew 7:12-16a

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them.

Mark 10:42-45

"And Jesus called them to him and said to them, 'You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave (doulos - servant/slave) of all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.'"

-----

Please don't tell me that Jesus was, here, supporting and endorsing people to be masters of slaves! He was telling us to serve one another and not "lord it over" others... I just find it utterly incredible how you can deny Jesus' overall message in these and other verses. I can't believe that if you were a Christian you would ignore these verses and "lord it over" people and own slaves.

Philemon 15-22

15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good--
16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.
18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.
19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back-- not to mention that you owe me your very self.
20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.
21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask [I believe that this possibly means manumission].
22 And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers [Hmmm... Sounds to me like Paul was going to check up and make sure of good treatment and possible release].

yummyfur · 09-10-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

So, slave trade was contrary to the "sound doctrine" of God. If it is contrary to the "sound doctrine" of God, then it ought, surely, to be ended. Where, exactly, does the end of slave trade leave the institution of slavery?

You are forgetting that in the Roman World many slaves never went through the slave traders.

Many Roman slave were combatants who surrendered(reguested to be taken into a Romans hand(power) during a military conflict). Thus you became that persons slave, a classic example would be Jospehus, Josephus was never owned by a slave trader but directly by Vespasian, who he had surrendered to. Such persons could be transfered to other parties, but not likely through a slave trader.

Selling them to a slave trader would be considerd a sign of weakness of the owner, that he could not support the slave, and needed cash so bad he had to sell right away to such a nefarious character. Any persons born to these slaves while they were still slaves, would be slaves as well and owned by their parents master, and not have gone through a slave trader.

A similar example would be that someone who only condemns Saloon and Dram shop owners, is unlikly to have been against drinking alchohol, but the nasty aspect of these places. That is, alchohol is readily available from other sources other than Saloon's or Dram shops, much like slave were readily available by other means other than slave traders in the Roman world.

Haran · 09-10-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

You are forgetting that in the Roman World many slaves never went through the slave traders.

According to Moses Finley in Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, "Rome's eastern conquests threw hundreds of thousands of men, women and children on to the slave market..." Also, "Many of these 'internal' slaves came on to the market through breeding or through the accepted practice of 'exposing' unwanted infants, but many also through the illegal activities, such as kidnapping or the purchase of freeborn children, that helped keep the slave dealers in business."

Even if your information is credible, this still overlooks Jesus' statement that we must 'love our neighbor as ourself". Can you honestly say that you wish to be treated as a slave, and may therefore treat another as a slave?

yummyfur · 09-10-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Can you honestly say that you wish to be treated as a slave, and may therefore treat another as a slave?

Under the mores of the ancient world, possibly. That is if someone spared your life during a military conflict, when you requested their hand or they offered you their hand, you were now indebted to them for your life and under their power as a slave, much like a Roman Marriage with Hand(were the women was under complete control of her husband). This was considered a valid kind of contractual situation, and you might wish such an opportunity to be extended to you in a conflict, as opposed to being executed or imprisoned.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-10-2005, 09:04 AM	#27
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	*Matthew 7:12-16a* 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. 13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. *Mark 10:42-45* "And Jesus called them to him and said to them, 'You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave (doulos - servant/slave) of all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.'" ----- Please don't tell me that Jesus was, here, supporting and endorsing people to be masters of slaves! He was telling us to serve one another and not "lord it over" others... I just find it utterly incredible how you can deny Jesus' overall message in these and other verses. I can't believe that if you were a Christian you would ignore these verses and "lord it over" people and own slaves. *Philemon 15-22* 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good-- 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back-- not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask [I believe that this possibly means manumission]. 22 And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers [Hmmm... Sounds to me like Paul was going to check up and make sure of good treatment and possible release].

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.