Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Joan of Bark · 09-10-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

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.

You are liberally interpreting the word "neighbor" as "everybody". The dictionary most commonly defines neighbor as someone who lives nearby. According to Dictionary.com:

Quote:

Word History: Loving one's neighbor as oneself would be much easier, or perhaps much more difficult, if the word neighbor had kept to its etymological meaning. The source of our word, the assumed West Germanic form *nhgabr, was a compound of the words *nhwiz, “near,�? and *bram, “dweller, especially a farmer.�? A neighbor, then, was a near dweller. Nahgebr, the Old English descendant of this West Germanic word, and its descendant in Middle English, neighebor, and our Modern English neighbor have all retained the literal notion, even though one can now have many neighbors whom one does not know, a situation that would have been highly unlikely in earlier times. The extension of this word to mean “fellow�? is probably attributable to the Christian concern with the treatment of one's fellow humans, as in the passage in Matthew 19:19 that urges love of one's neighbor.

I would argue that since in ancient times many people were considered lesser humans (women, barbarians, even gentiles in general) the authors of those passages referring to ones "neighbor" never meant to include slaves.

Chili · 09-10-2005, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

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?

Religion was also called slavery in Galations 5:1.

The fact is that in our conscious mind we a slave to our subconscious mind whereby we are predestined. This makes all of us slaves and from here "the master" must be good to his slave and the slave good to his/her master so liberation can follow. Traditional masters were Lords who had been there and had suffered, or they would not be Lords (knights). IOW, they knew where liberation was to be found for pagans and I do not think that our modern credit card companies who have us on a leash can match that insight.

Joan of Bark · 09-10-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

IOW, they knew where liberation was to be found for pagans and I do not think that our modern credit card companies who have us on a leash can match that insight.

So cut up your credit card.

Haran · 09-10-2005, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

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.

Then you are justifying slavery... :huh:

Sheshbazzar · 09-10-2005, 09:55 AM

Exd 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

Exd 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

yummyfur · 09-10-2005, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Then you are justifying slavery... :huh:

No. The mores of the ancient world allowed enslavement as an aspect of a surrendering combatant as legitimate. I don't think a surrendering combatant should be enslaved or killed, but to someone in the Roman world, it was an uncontested part of warfare that was acceptable to them, because combatants were under no obligation to not kill other combatants or even combatants who attempted to surrender, therefore someone who allowed enslavement seemed a step up.

but you are merely sidestepping the issue. Obviously serfdom was an integral part of the Chritian world for sometime, I certainly don't condone that, but would argue that if you asked a Christian of that time, they could come up with why this was still loving your neighbor as yourself.

Haran · 09-10-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

You are liberally interpreting the word "neighbor" as "everybody". The dictionary most commonly defines neighbor as someone who lives nearby. According to Dictionary.com:

Unfortunately, the dictionary entry is speaking of languages other than that in which the bible was written. The Greek and Hebrew underlying these statements are obviously inclusive without liberally interpreting anything.

In fact, in the verse I quoted from Matthew 7 above, the words are "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you...". There is no need of liberal interpretation here.

Chili · 09-10-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

So cut up your credit card.

Please no, I own the company.

Chili · 09-10-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Exd 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

Exd 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

Why must you upset this tread? Notice "shall plainly say" and after that the "door post" is far enough for judgement to take place. This would be the "narrow gate" also called the "narrows of Kiang" in Buddhism.

Joan of Bark · 09-10-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Unfortunately, the dictionary entry is speaking of languages other than that in which the bible was written. The Greek and Hebrew underlying these statements are obviously inclusive without liberally interpreting anything.

Why obviously? And why then do not the modern Biblical translators use the word EVERYBODY to avoid any possible misinterpretation?

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

09-10-2005, 09:55 AM	#35
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Exd 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Exd 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.