Thought about slavery

[jcrichton]

So let me see if I understand. I’m a person who feels that words have meaning and it is wrong to use the exact opposite of that word as its meaning (for example, that it would be wrong to describe a believer as an atheist or someone who doesn’t believe in the tenets of Catholicism as a Catholic). Now because I have this very basic and common sense threshold as to how language works I should not be allowed to try and interpret the meaning of a text, despite the fact that a person who works within the rules of language would be far more accurate in interpreting text, right? I hope you can see why I fail to grasp the logic in what you’re saying.

And don’t think it’s gone unnoticed that while you highlighted two of my major problems with the defense of slavery by Christians (that the Hebrews didn’t possess slaves and hadn’t for 430 years when they were given these rules) there is not one word of refutation to show why that should not be a concern for pro-slavery Christians.

Also I was curious if you would take that next step in defending your statement as to which groups were and were not responsible for bringing about slavery. (Barring that I had hoped for a retraction of that statement which is not accurate.)

I do not take it as a sign of disrespect. As I said before I don’t begrudge anyone from wishing to cease continuing a discussion, but I had hoped said discussion was going to be about the facts at hand and not ignoring those facts to focus on my alleged motives. A person looking at this thread now or in the future might not feel a strong defense for a reasoned faith has been made.

As I’ve said before (either on this thread or some other) often times when the responses to tough questions are vague and off-point they can in their own way expose tough answers.

…nope… I am saying that reason evades you. Your statements are not the pronouncements of the Sacred Scriptures’ text but your interpretation of not only what the text means but what the object of the text would understand. Then you scrutinize a generalization of a terminology to the precision required of neurosurgery.

…again, this continues to be circular–though several tangents removed.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

…nope… I am saying that reason evades you. Your statements are not the pronouncements of the Sacred Scriptures’ text but your interpretation of not only what the text means but what the object of the text would understand. Then you scrutinize a generalization of a terminology to the precision required of neurosurgery.

So analyzing Scripture requires the precision of a neurosurgeon yet you defined an atheist as being the exact opposite of an atheist.

Explain with specifics where it’s reasonable, whether in Scripture or in general, that a phrase can mean its opposite. There’s only one use of language where that happens: sarcasm. Maybe you’re saying that when Moses wrote the Torah that he was being sarcastic when God was giving all the rules on how his people could obtain and treat slaves?

No matter what the explanation, we need an honest-to-goodness explanation and not just a remark attacking my reasoning skills.

…again, this continues to be circular–though several tangents removed.

No, what you removed were pointed questions asking why God would wish to detail these slavery rules to the Hebrews considering their state at the time. These are not tangential questions but cut to the heart of the inconsistent defense that pro-slavery Christians always give. It is simply to discard such questions and consider the matter settled.

The other thing you removed was a second request to back up the assertion you made about who 'brought about" slavery. It’s not only a fundamental of basic discussion but a matter of common courtesy that if a person makes a statement (especially a deep blanket statement like you did) that the person be both willing and able to defend it. Each time you are silent on the matter – neither backing up or retracting the statement – gives a strong impression that the statement is undefendable.

 

[jcrichton]

So analyzing Scripture requires the precision of a neurosurgeon yet you defined an atheist as being the exact opposite of an atheist.

Explain with specifics where it’s reasonable, whether in Scripture or in general, that a phrase can mean its opposite. There’s only one use of language where that happens: sarcasm. Maybe you’re saying that when Moses wrote the Torah that he was being sarcastic when God was giving all the rules on how his people could obtain and treat slaves?

No matter what the explanation, we need an honest-to-goodness explanation and not just a remark attacking my reasoning skills.

No, what you removed were pointed questions asking why God would wish to detail these slavery rules to the Hebrews considering their state at the time. These are not tangential questions but cut to the heart of the inconsistent defense that pro-slavery Christians always give. It is simply to discard such questions and consider the matter settled.

The other thing you removed was a second request to back up the assertion you made about who 'brought about" slavery. It’s not only a fundamental of basic discussion but a matter of common courtesy that if a person makes a statement (especially a deep blanket statement like you did) that the person be both willing and able to defend it. Each time you are silent on the matter – neither backing up or retracting the statement – gives a strong impression that the statement is undefendable.

…here’s why the argument is circular, as well as the tangents:

…nope… I am saying that reason evades you. Your statements are not the pronouncements of the Sacred Scriptures’ text but** your interpretation of not only what the text means but what the object of the text would understand**. Then you scrutinize a generalization of a terminology to the precision required of neurosurgery.

…again, this continues to be circular–though several tangents removed.

Maran atha!

Angel

…the bolded text in black is what I have surmised from your present argument (this thread). The reason why I have come to such a conclusion is due to the text highlighted in navy. You have taken Sacred Scriptures and given it the interpretation that you maintain as the correct Revelation of God; yet, not only have you deemed that your interpretation is correct but you have determined that it is also the interpretation that the Hebrew people would also have gathered from Scriptures.

While your interpretation is wrong (a fact that has been demonstrated throughout this thread) you not only maintain your interpretation as fact but, simultaneously, you take umbrage at a generalization that I made about a terminology which you apply to yourself–this is where the text highlighted in magenta comes into play; I am not suggesting that to understand Sacred Scriptures a person must have the intelligence and abilities of a neurosurgeon but that, though you jump to conclusions about Sacred Scriptures, you demand that I have the precision of neurosurgery when using terminologies.

Here’s the fact about Sacred Scriptures:

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 St. peter 1:20-21)

…so it is not human will or intellect but the Holy Spirit (God Himself) that can truly divulge the meaning of Scriptures.

The Holy Spirit can inspire all men (inclusive of women) be they the simplest of thinkers or of the highest intellect… yet, man, without the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, can reason only to the point of his personal preconception.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

…here’s why the argument is circular, as well as the tangents:

…the bolded text in black is what I have surmised from your present argument (this thread). The reason why I have come to such a conclusion is due to the text highlighted in navy. You have taken Sacred Scriptures and given it the interpretation that you maintain as the correct Revelation of God; yet, not only have you deemed that your interpretation is correct but you have determined that it is also the interpretation that the Hebrew people would also have gathered from Scriptures.

While your interpretation is wrong (a fact that has been demonstrated throughout this thread)

What SPECIFIC passages of Scripture do you believe I have misinterpreted, that I gave a reading to that the Hebrews would not have also read? I have given the passages the very plain reading that one would expect when what is given is essentially directives and tort. If a passage says the Hebrews weren’t to follow the practices of neighboring nations, then it can’t be used as an excuse as to why Hebrews had slaves. If a passage says a slave owner can beat a man so severely that he lies in anguish and dies the next day, then it can’t be said that God isn’t against the beating of slaves. What is wrong specifically in my readings on passages like these and others? Words have meaning and should be treated as such.

What do you believe is the proper interpretation of those passage(s), and why should your interpretation be deemed correct over mine?

you not only maintain your interpretation as fact but, simultaneously, you take umbrage at a generalization that I made about a terminology which you apply to yourself

Are you talking about the use of the word “atheist” or the use of language? It’s not clear at all.

–this is where the text highlighted in magenta comes into play; I am not suggesting that to understand Sacred Scriptures a person must have the intelligence and abilities of a neurosurgeon but that, though you jump to conclusions about Sacred Scriptures, you demand that I have the precision of neurosurgery when using terminologies.

I’m not demanding an exacting use of words, but I want you to not willy-nilly just make up new definitions for words that are the exact opposite of well-defined words. I ask for the mildest respect for language.

Here’s the fact about Sacred Scriptures:

…so it is not human will or intellect but the Holy Spirit (God Himself) that can truly divulge the meaning of Scriptures.

The Holy Spirit can inspire all men (inclusive of women) be they the simplest of thinkers or of the highest intellect… yet, man, without the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, can reason only to the point of his personal preconception.

Would you also say that only those inspired by Allah can properly interpret the Quran?

Also will you please either defend or retract your statement as to who brought about slavery. The facts are not in your favor, and not answering the question doesn’t negate that, only glaringly highlight it.

 

[jcrichton]

What SPECIFIC passages of Scripture do you believe I have misinterpreted, that I gave a reading to that the Hebrews would not have also read? I have given the passages the very plain reading that one would expect when what is given is essentially directives and tort. If a passage says the Hebrews weren’t to follow the practices of neighboring nations, then it can’t be used as an excuse as to why Hebrews had slaves. If a passage says a slave owner can beat a man so severely that he lies in anguish and dies the next day, then it can’t be said that God isn’t against the beating of slaves. What is wrong specifically in my readings on passages like these and others? Words have meaning and should be treated as such.

What do you believe is the proper interpretation of those passage(s), and why should your interpretation be deemed correct over mine?

Are you talking about the use of the word “atheist” or the use of language? It’s not clear at all.

I’m not demanding an exacting use of words, but I want you to not willy-nilly just make up new definitions for words that are the exact opposite of well-defined words. I ask for the mildest respect for language.

Would you also say that only those inspired by Allah can properly interpret the Quran?

Also will you please either defend or retract your statement as to who brought about slavery. The facts are not in your favor, and not answering the question doesn’t negate that, only glaringly highlight it.

The final word–I cannot convince you to change your mind; you will never convince me to change my mind.

I cannot apologize for my personal thought on who is a non-Believer and who is not–regardless of how you interpret the term atheist, all who do not Believe, including those who have Believed sometime in their past, are atheist by default since they reject Yahweh God (or any other deity which they have held as their god) unless that deity commands them to enslave people (in such a case they are non-Christians who serve a non-Christian god/s).

Anyone who reads any text, anywhere in the world, and that text spells out “a sound in the wilderness,” in the absence of any other text, preceding or proceeding it, there’s nothing that can be said but that a person read and understood “a sound in the wilderness.”

Yet, if I, or any other person in the world, were to interpret that that particular text means that ‘there was a dog barking who made a sound in the wilderness,’ (or some other interpretation that would contort the original text) I would be terribly wrong!

I cannot clarify this issue any further.

I don’t mean to offend, but I do not even subscribe to stores’ circulars.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The final word–I cannot convince you to change your mind; you will never convince me to change my mind.

I cannot apologize for my personal thought on who is a non-Believer and who is not–regardless of how you interpret the term atheist, all who do not Believe, including those who have Believed sometime in their past, are atheist by default since they reject Yahweh God (or any other deity which they have held as their god) unless that deity commands them to enslave people (in such a case they are non-Christians who serve a non-Christian god/s).

It’s not about how I interpret the term atheist. It’s already been interpreted, dare I say defined!

n.

1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos “without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly,” from a- “without” + theos “a god”

It’s not just about Adonai, Yahweh, Jesus but all gods. Lumping all non-Christians and calling them atheists is not just mistaken but demonstrably, undeniably, by all accounts wrong.

Your tag at the top of your posts says you’re from New Jersey. So am I! If someone from out of state said they were broke and asked you if they could go on the Turnpike for free, I’m going to assume you would say no. Why? Because free in the context of money has a specific well-defined meaning: at no cost. If you were to tell them that yes it is free because you have come up with a brand new “interpretation” of the word free that means “to costs money”, the person is either going to hear some unkind words from a toll taker or get a not-so-friendly letter in the mail. If someone in Point Pleasant asks you how to get to the Barnegat Lighthouse and you say “Go east. You can’t miss it!” at some point as they stand in the Atlantic Ocean they’'ll wonder if you know what east means.

But even ignoring your misuse of the word atheist when saying that non-Christians and especially atheists brought about slavery, you are seriously underplaying the role Christians had regarding the slave trade.

Anyone who reads any text, anywhere in the world, and that text spells out “a sound in the wilderness,” in the absence of any other text, preceding or proceeding it, there’s nothing that can be said but that a person read and understood “a sound in the wilderness.”

Yet, if I, or any other person in the world, were to interpret that that particular text means that ‘there was a dog barking who made a sound in the wilderness,’ (or some other interpretation that would contort the original text) I would be terribly wrong!

You’re saying I’m contorting the original text. I’ve asked and inquired. I’ve practically begged for you to give some specifics where you believe that I am not accurately reading the text, but still no responses.

As I’ve said many times in this thread, a general vague call to be nice doesn’t overcome the call for or performing of great evil. I talked about Sir Jimmy Saville, a man who did so much in raising money for charity that he was knighted for it, only to find out after his death all of his heinous acts. The god of the Bible telling people how man is to inflict harm on man all under his watchful isn’t negated by a few passages that say oh by the way be nice to foreigners.

I cannot clarify this issue any further.

I would disagree strongly, as there is nothing remotely clear in the defense given so far of slavery in the Bible.

I don’t mean to offend, but I do not even subscribe to stores’ circulars.

This is not about offense or apology as I’m not offended nor in need of apology. The English language is the thing that has taken the most beating so far.

I’ll ask again. Can you defend your statement as to who was responsible for bringing about slavery? Can you defend your statement that I am misreading the passages which show God endorsing and setting procedures for owning and (mis)treating slaves.

 

[LethalMouse]

I would disagree strongly, as there is nothing remotely clear in the defense given so far of slavery in the Bible.

What about my post???

Where oh where would 47 million people in the USA be if we did not have any infrastructure to care for them?

Where would the simple and the sick and the weak and so on be?

In the society of the time, they had 2 main means of existence. A free death or servitude.

I worked at a fast food place once and in 2 days learned all food to all register to everything entailed within. The manager who hadn’t worked with me yet about stop being able to function mentally that I had not spent a week learning each thing as is prescribed…

I went to McD’s once and ordered 2 items. One cost $3.00 and one cost $1.00…
The guy there rang it up and said “$5.35 sir”

Ummm no lol dude you hit something wrong.

“it is 5.35, how is that wrong?”

Dude how much is the sandwhich?

3.00

How much is the drink?

1.00

3+1 does not equal 5.35 now does it?

“IDK that is what it says”

We did this for a good few minutes…as I tried to explain to this grown human how 3+1 does not = 5.35 with a 6% tax.
Finally before my brain exploded from dealing with stupid, I ordered some other meal thing with a neat price so I didn’t have to talk to him anymore.

Now imagine this fellow trying to live by himself in ancient times and manage his own land?? LOL NO he would be dead!

So he would fall under a slave class in most cases. And then what if he metaphorically refuses to accept in some situation that 3+1+ 6% = $4.24???

What if that situation is important to the life blood of himself and the entire operation for which he serves? Men, women, children?

It begins to look more like TWD in that you can not screw up your job bc IF you do you die and they die.

How do you make him accept 3+1+6% = $4.24???

Now that discipline starts to make more sense?

Would you punch someone in the face to stop them from shooting themselves??? Let alone knowing that if the bullet passes through it will kill others???

 

[jcrichton]

It’s not about how I interpret the term atheist. It’s already been interpreted, dare I say defined!

It’s not just about Adonai, Yahweh, Jesus but all gods. Lumping all non-Christians and calling them atheists is not just mistaken but demonstrably, undeniably, by all accounts wrong.

Your tag at the top of your posts says you’re from New Jersey. So am I! If someone from out of state said they were broke and asked you if they could go on the Turnpike for free, I’m going to assume you would say no. Why? Because free in the context of money has a specific well-defined meaning: at no cost. If you were to tell them that yes it is free because you have come up with a brand new “interpretation” of the word free that means “to costs money”, the person is either going to hear some unkind words from a toll taker or get a not-so-friendly letter in the mail. If someone in Point Pleasant asks you how to get to the Barnegat Lighthouse and you say “Go east. You can’t miss it!” at some point as they stand in the Atlantic Ocean they’'ll wonder if you know what east means.

But even ignoring your misuse of the word atheist when saying that non-Christians and especially atheists brought about slavery, you are seriously underplaying the role Christians had regarding the slave trade.

You’re saying I’m contorting the original text. I’ve asked and inquired. I’ve practically begged for you to give some specifics where you believe that I am not accurately reading the text, but still no responses.

As I’ve said many times in this thread, a general vague call to be nice doesn’t overcome the call for or performing of great evil. I talked about Sir Jimmy Saville, a man who did so much in raising money for charity that he was knighted for it, only to find out after his death all of his heinous acts. The god of the Bible telling people how man is to inflict harm on man all under his watchful isn’t negated by a few passages that say oh by the way be nice to foreigners.

I would disagree strongly, as there is nothing remotely clear in the defense given so far of slavery in the Bible.

This is not about offense or apology as I’m not offended nor in need of apology. The English language is the thing that has taken the most beating so far.

I’ll ask again. Can you defend your statement as to who was responsible for bringing about slavery? Can you defend your statement that I am misreading the passages which show God endorsing and setting procedures for owning and (mis)treating slaves.

Please, understand, you yourself have offered the definition: without god!

…anything further would be redundant as this circular argument ceases to end.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

What about my post???

I’m sorry, I completely missed it. I have gone back and looked at it, and I believe my opinion will stand.

Where oh where would 47 million people in the USA be if we did not have any infrastructure to care for them?

Where would the simple and the sick and the weak and so on be?

You don’t have to tell me about the importance of a social safety net. My dad worked for my state’s child protect services division and much of what he did was to get programs working that helped children and foster families.

In the society of the time, they had 2 main means of existence. A free death or servitude.

I’m going to get back to this, but I want to note that you are saying that the societal structure at the time gave no more than 2 options.

I completely sympathize with your McDonald’s story. Many years ago I was working in an arcade in summers between school. It was one of those places where people could play games to win tickets which could be exchanged for prizes (everything from plastic whistles to televisions). The way the tickets were counted out by the employees involved counting by thirties. We had some high schoolers who didn’t know their thirties timestables. so big labels were put behind the counter that said:
30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Now imagine this fellow trying to live by himself in ancient times and manage his own land?? LOL NO he would be dead!

The levels of education and the types of jobs available don’t necessarily translate for time and place to time and place. Who knows what would have been the outcome of your McDonald’s employee. He might have been a fisherman, a shepherd, or out in the hot sun working crops.

The trick is that our time displaced McDonald’s employee may or may not have been successful on his own or may have had to work for some other person or people. The latter is not so strange as there have always been quite a few people who have had to work for someone else instead of themselves. Now is it possible for people to work for another person without having to submit to the injustices as laid out by God in the Bible? Absolutely! And you said above that there were only two choices for those people who can not make a living on their own: death or servitude (i.e. slavery). But we know that is a false dichotomy. People who are able to work but maybe not support themselves have for centuries have lived without being slaves, subject to manslaughter and beatings amongst other things.

And if you say the society at the time only had those two options, then who is to blame for that setup. These rules were all put into place by God to a people who had spent over 400 years as slaves. If you doubt that God was setting societal rules, read the speech which contains the rules for slave treatment which runs from Exouds 21:20-24, In it he tells his people what to do if one harms another, how to handle debts, and so forth.

God, someone who can see throughout time not only what has been and will be but what could ever possibly be. In it he can see various interactions between two people where one works for another, and so many of these interactions are good – or at the very least not evil. Yet this infinitely wise God could not even fathom such a non-evil arrangement where people like your McDonald’s co-worker could work for another outside of slavery.

And as I’ve been harping on all thread. Only a portion of the slaves in the Bible are ones that chose to sell their services to another. The Bible is fine with selling children into slavery. God has absolutely no problem with children being born into slavery. He tells his people how to purchase people from neighboring nations and he is allegedly perfectly good. All of these are not about employer/employee relationships but a desecration of the basic dignity of man.

What if that situation is important to the life blood of himself and the entire operation for which he serves? Men, women, children?

Now that discipline starts to make more sense?

Not at all. Tell me a situation where the life blood of numerous people depended on enslaving one man or woman.

Would you punch someone in the face to stop them from shooting themselves??? Let alone knowing that if the bullet passes through it will kill others???

The saying is “God helps those that help themselves.” There is not a follow-up saying “God enslaves those that won’t help themselves.”

All of your analogies wither under the very mildest of scrutiny.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Please, understand, you yourself have offered the definition: without god!

Gods plural. Your particular god is just one of many. A person who believes in Allah is a Muslim and not an atheist. A person who believes in the various Hindu gods is a Hindu and not an atheist.

If you want further proof, in some countries expressing atheist thoughts is a crime. Do a Google search on Raif Badawi who was sentenced in a Saudi Arabian court to years of jail and one thousand lashes (50 a week for 20 weeks). They are Muslim, but by your reckoning that if they aren’t Christian they too are atheist. That’s why it’s important to abide by the meanings of words and not just make them up to suit a false statement. Atheism means non-Christian and non-Muslim and and non-Mormon etc.

So anything to back up your claim that I am misreading scripture?

Anything to defend your statement claiming that non-Christians and “especially atheists” brought about slavery?

Anything?

Bueller?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Mike-

We’ve read each other’s posts, watched Copan’s YouTube video(s) (I’ve watched several), and I’ve purchased his book and begun reading it. I think we have a reasonable understanding of each other’s position on the subject of OT slavery.

And we still disagree.

My final two questions to you are these:

1. In the ANE, were foreign slaves treated better in Israel or in neighboring countries (iow, would someone sold into slavery have wanted to be sent to Israel or to another country?)
2. Did the rules regarding slavery found in the Mosaic Laws represent an improvement over the laws found in other ANE codes?

As you answer these questions, please keep in mind that I am not asking you whether the Mosaic Laws measure up to your modern preferences and sensibilities regarding slavery. I’m asking you to to measure them against the yardsticks of their own era.

Thanks.

 

[LethalMouse]

I’m sorry, I completely missed it. I have gone back and looked at it, and I believe my opinion will stand.

You don’t have to tell me about the importance of a social safety net. My dad worked for my state’s child protect services division and much of what he did was to get programs working that helped children and foster families.

Well there is a more complex situation but I think I will touch on the details of safety nets in the future

I’m going to get back to this, but I want to note that you are saying that the societal structure at the time gave no more than 2 options.

I completely sympathize with your McDonald’s story. Many years ago I was working in an arcade in summers between school. It was one of those places where people could play games to win tickets which could be exchanged for prizes (everything from plastic whistles to televisions). The way the tickets were counted out by the employees involved counting by thirties. We had some high schoolers who didn’t know their thirties timestables. so big labels were put behind the counter that said:
30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

The levels of education and the types of jobs available don’t necessarily translate for time and place to time and place. Who knows what would have been the outcome of your McDonald’s employee. He might have been a fisherman, a shepherd, or out in the hot sun working crops.

I was going over tax regulations and money moving last night. I was skimming info and making quick rough ideas of what could be done. I in haste and such at one point also during a discussion said that making X move could yield me a positive tax income of $250 and then was like NO NO DUH brain fart… it under that would be $500…and then OH oops I forgot the technical detail of blah blah it would most likely be about $200 and may or may not qualify for a few extra areas of breaks coming to idk maybe 225 or so.

The convo was a idea and general convo. To master this avenue of tax info I need to see if certain things I anticipate in making money come to fruition then I need to read the legal details and evaluate the losses I can take within the same year on certain long term investments that they may be beneficial. Ergo to delve properly into the details I need hours of time, papers, figures, and maybe a calculator…However, the overall idea of what I was looking at remains true.

In this here interwebs people love to pick apart tiny details and we sadly are not wealthy philosophers and I am no theological author with an advance from my publisher to live on and research and such. I imagine any simple representative example I can toss out can be picked at much as my figures of 250 and 500 were “wrong” but if I were discussing the taxes with you, and you were to negate the general truth of how to save money with such a move because the small detail was wrong you would be mistaken about the taxes.

I agree my solitary McD worker could be anything. He may have grown older into a doctor (maybe with a slightly high mortality rate? lol) but he is a simplified example and not the totality of the universe.

I said the “47 million” not because literally that is the number of people who fit my bill, but because they are representative. it could be 1/2 or 1/4 that in a sense. the details are not important unless me and you plan to conquer the world together and map out the greatest way to run utopia ever, Unfortunately I have a regular person job and a mortgage and such so

 

[LethalMouse]

The trick is that our time displaced McDonald’s employee may or may not have been successful on his own or may have had to work for some other person or people. The latter is not so strange as there have always been quite a few people who have had to work for someone else instead of themselves. Now is it possible for people to work for another person without having to submit to the injustices as laid out by God in the Bible? Absolutely! And you said above that there were only two choices for those people who can not make a living on their own: death or servitude (i.e. slavery). But we know that is a false dichotomy. People who are able to work but maybe not support themselves have for centuries have lived without being slaves, subject to manslaughter and beatings amongst other things.

I don’t necessarily agree with the supposed injustices as they were never meant to be done at random. And there is consideration of evil. Or bad or wrong, whether the seemingly abused or the true abuser.

Again to the details, no there is not persay literally 2 options but there is “better” options. Under the rules the servants lived much like family. And I said in my one post I could point to numerous people I have met whose life would be substantially better as a servant to a proper follower of the rules. Think of it in modern terms of the min wage worker living in a hellhole who cant afford anything. now put them as a modern day servant and they have that job. They are now like a teenager who has a min wage job, who gains much benefits that comes from the parents and lives in a nice place, eats good food, no worries of healthcare or homelessness. No living in a crack infested crimezone. Truly I don’t know how horrible your childhood may/may not have bee, But I would rather be the 15yr old me with my part time job than many adults I know. Though I never really made as low as min wage even at 15 probably why I would either not have been a servant or would have eventually made it to freedom

And if you say the society at the time only had those two options, then who is to blame for that setup. These rules were all put into place by God to a people who had spent over 400 years as slaves. If you doubt that God was setting societal rules, read the speech which contains the rules for slave treatment which runs from Exouds 21:20-24, In it he tells his people what to do if one harms another, how to handle debts, and so forth.

God, someone who can see throughout time not only what has been and will be but what could ever possibly be. In it he can see various interactions between two people where one works for another, and so many of these interactions are good – or at the very least not evil. Yet this infinitely wise God could not even fathom such a non-evil arrangement where people like your McDonald’s co-worker could work for another outside of slavery.

I disagree due to that God can do almost anything. There is one thing He can not do which is the usual battle cry of those opposed to God…He can’t make truly free willed beings “perfect” or “better” or guaranteed to not fail. The only way would be to have that lack that freedom.

So much as Jesus said of divorce “because of the hardness of your hearts” slavery was not what God “wanted” it was a thing that worked in a circumstance of people who didn’t listen to begin with.

Ever tell someone to do something and they didn’t listen? then things are kind of half messed up so you say “well just do that now” because the first thing is now impossible? I have worked with enough people in my life to have had this happen a bit

 

[LethalMouse]

And as I’ve been harping on all thread. Only a portion of the slaves in the Bible are ones that chose to sell their services to another. The Bible is fine with selling children into slavery. God has absolutely no problem with children being born into slavery. He tells his people how to purchase people from neighboring nations and he is allegedly perfectly good. All of these are not about employer/employee relationships but a desecration of the basic dignity of man.

Where were the orphanages? where were the foster parent? today foster parents are PAID. Basically before they bought labor and now they a paid in money. In fact much of our society is convoluted money slavery. And I argue that given if my employer eats steak I am to eat steak at his table. If my employer eats steak I may only get paid enough for bread. The money system in some sense is easier and better for the masters. I am in this society a quasi free man and I do own a small parcel of land outright but it is not modern first world living there lol. My house is ok with a good chunk of acres and I have a nice 1 yr old car with fancy electronics, and a really good awesome benefits job where I can often write posts

I go to work and if told to go home I am broke, I put in labor at work so that I may pay the bank for my home and car. Our system has a hyper inflated healthcare costs based on insurance that I basically must pay to keep my standard etc…

I am given enough “extra” to serve like the coliseum and make me happy while I serve. The only real difference is for me it is partial choice, as I could have chosen to live like a 3rd world king here in the US and I would be out from under really being in debt at this point, though I seek the long run and I would rather serve in heaven that rule hell…

But If the banks I pay and those I work for were masters of slaves, they would have to do more. More for me, more to run my life. instead they give me a few pennies and send me to live or die with no responsibility to me and they are guaranteed to almost never lose. whereas to lose a slave is costly, to lose a free man is to get his house and resell it.

Now all this aside I think me and you perhaps would simply never agree on the ability of a slave to become free. But I would say a free capable person would and you probably assume all were beaten down, idk we can reconcile that as records are not exactly well kept from the time lol.

Not at all. Tell me a situation where the life blood of numerous people depended on enslaving one man or woman.

I don’t rememeber where I heard about it or saw it, but there was a woman who wanted a garden in X spot. Her husband thought that was fine and planted it there. It basically didn’t grow as it was on a hill and the watering didn’t work right.

People forget even when they idealize homesteading in modern times and not needing money. if you messed up your crop process, messed up your livestock process and had a bad yield…odds? you died. When I have a bad crop I go to the grocery store and eat like a hedonist because YUM. When 4000 yrs ago guy did they same he did not eat.

The saying is “God helps those that help themselves.” There is not a follow-up saying “God enslaves those that won’t help themselves.”

Yes, and if your refuse to do. And are useful to me and I help myself, why not God help me with you? or visa versa? Many people like to blame demons… but demons had free will. Therefore in some cases logic dictates there could be a human who is stand alone. No need to influence that humans horribleness, maybe even a human more crazed than Satan who would challenge Heaven and Hell.

Anyway, much like a prisoner making license plates or cleaning roads or caring for animals there in TX.

Not so much infrastructure to care for the society at large, but perfect for said people to care for a small estate no?

theft and you go to jail for 5 yrs or theft and you may become a slave.

Al things are abused as there is workplace abuse, innocents in jails, houses foreclosed on though immoral legalism etc etc.

I argue that the percentage of abuse to slaves was at the same level as some ccrafty banker or HOA can steal your house

But the higher percentage was that most slaves where there in lieu of something worse or they were deserving.

Orphans, Mentally handicap, criminals, people who would basically be an addict. etc etc.

A few got abused by a jerk master, and a few “normal” people slipped through the cracks and got/stayed a slave. But OT percentage worked out better more than bad.

And theologically the unfairly disciplined and abused slave may see reward, that one who was not kind to someone under their protection may be answering for it.

Just as should I legally ninja steal your house, your earthly life would be hellish. But likely you are good and go to good, I am bad and will atone.

All of your analogies wither under the very mildest of scrutiny.

See tax example

 

[Randy_Carson]

More here from a Jewish perspective:

Jewish Concepts: Slavery
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/slavery.html

 

[LethalMouse]

More here from a Jewish perspective:

Jewish Concepts: Slavery
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/slavery.html

I remember much of my knowledge on the subject from many moons ago. Thanks for the link seems I remembered fairly accurately

 

[jcrichton]

Gods plural. Your particular god is just one of many. A person who believes in Allah is a Muslim and not an atheist. A person who believes in the various Hindu gods is a Hindu and not an atheist.

If you want further proof, in some countries expressing atheist thoughts is a crime. Do a Google search on Raif Badawi who was sentenced in a Saudi Arabian court to years of jail and one thousand lashes (50 a week for 20 weeks). They are Muslim, but by your reckoning that if they aren’t Christian they too are atheist. That’s why it’s important to abide by the meanings of words and not just make them up to suit a false statement. Atheism means non-Christian and non-Muslim and and non-Mormon etc.

So anything to back up your claim that I am misreading scripture?

Anything to defend your statement claiming that non-Christians and “especially atheists” brought about slavery?

Anything?

Bueller?

Hi, Mike!
…so you are stating that Muslims and Hindus believe in divinities who command them to make slaves of people?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[goout]

Human beings are not God.
Human beings are subject to development. Understanding develops, virtue develops, modes of expression develop, language develops, cultural practices and sensitivities develop.

The writers of scripture wrote in a given time and were subject to all the cultural peculiarities of that time. Since the writers of the OT wrote in that ancient context, it is not fruitful to rigidly interpret the OT with modern sensibilities. We need to understand the culture they were writing in, and not fit a square peg into a round hole.

God is unchanging. God was the same yesterday as he is today as he will be tomorrow. All time is present for him, so he cannot be cruel one moment and loving the next moment. There is not change in Him.

Scripture seems to have inconsistencies because it is a collaboration between God and man.