Religion Slavery and the Bible

[No-name]

At this point I am more interested in seeing what other people think before I form an opinion. I have read a couple of websites that either excuse or mitigate this information, but I wanted to see if anyone had anything better.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

So- should we as Christians ignore these verses, make excuses for them, explain them away, or attack them head on.

Not being an intellectual coward would imply the correct choice.

(I'm actually not certain what to do- the above site where I got the verses from does a great job of mitigating-- which I might repeat.)

You mean it does a great job at rationalizing an inherant aberation of good and justice. It explains away and makes room for depraved acts committed by a Fairy God King that is put forth as one of love, compassion and mercy. Where is mercy in instigating and regulating slavery and not speaking out against it?

I think many come to forums to discuss and debate -- not to trounce all around the internet on links. If you like a link with its explanations, why not internalize it (that way what you learn from it will stick) and then be the proxy mouthpiece for it by summerizing it and giving a brief synopsis of it as your defense for whatever you are attempting to defend?

That makes debate much more fun, interesting and benificial to those who internalize information rather than being lazy and citing by sending people off out of the forum room to bring back which with you should have brought back.

Do your homework! as a Good and Loving Father would admonish his child.

 

[No-name]

The link is the link- check it out. What I posted were Bible verses...I may steal something from it- the link later on. I only gave one link- the main one I used was the online bible and I searched slavery. You don't need to "trounce around." It was only one link.

I agree that Christians should tackle this head on- but it seems a bit more important than just giving you the first things that came out of my brain. Especially since apparently the entire existence of God is at stake. Research- gathering data- is just one step. I am doing my homework. I hope you don't mind being patient. Feel free to draw upon my list of verses if you like. It appears that for the time being, you have a significant advantage.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Especially since apparently the entire existence of God is at stake.

Wow, what hyperbol! He either exists or doesn`t exist no matter how well or not well you can explain the slavery situation. You have too much of a high idea (Pride?) of yourself to pin his existence on your mortal attempts.

What is at stake is coming to the terms that you may be worshipping a Better Devil than a Bad Devil. Besides that, perhaps your belief in the Bible as the WOG could be at stake. But, don`t worry, that usually takes months, if not years to have those walls crumble away. Your still safe for now.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

but it seems a bit more important than just giving you the first things that came out of my brain.

Trip... <snicker snicker>

Why? You are the one who likes short simple explanations. If what you value is short simplicity, then why don`t you give us the first thing that comes to your brain -- provided it is based on reason and is sound and morals based on goodness.

Are you telling it is not short and simple and therefore it doesn`t fall into what you like to cling to? If not, then why don`t you just reject it and what it is trying to wrap up?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

SFV- do you think you can be civil?

I always have been, therefore I have nothing to change.

You on the other hand:

Do you think you can appreciate witticism, correct word usage, and reframe from calling me a bigot, intolerant, and filled with hate, and accept that Xtianity has no status deserving of special consideration and criticims no different from Nazism, Communism, genocide, rape, etc... in the arena of ideas and opinions?

If you hadn`t pressed those childish and baseless accusations and put them there repeatedly as cues for your forum friends to pile on, the disussion could have been more further advanced by now.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As SVF said, such a historic event doesn't even get a minor mention in Egyptian records. As they are somewhat more reliable and precise than one highly biased history document, I've a tendency to believe the Egyptian records rather than the grandiose myth in Exodus.

Yes. Indeed as I have said. Until there is any significant proof to show otherwise, as Mycernius has said, Exodus is a "grandiose" myth, or perhaps more accurate -- a fable.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As to your debating style, one can discuss any subject and still maintain a certain amount of respect for another's opinion. Honestly I haven't seen you be near to respectful of the opposing side's opinion, but that has already been brought up by a few other members here, and I don't suppose my bringing it up again will change anything.

No, it won`t because you are in error with your analysis of my style and dishonest evaluation of Sabro's intolerant and baseless claims of "bigotry and intolerance." As for the others, a few over an even lesser few does not mean the majority is right. It could mean they are all wrong and are just piling on to give aid to a friend. I choose the latter.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I have moved this post from the thread "The Bible is not the WOG (Word of God) since it is what started the slavery topic and now there is a thread just for that. Sorry it is out of order. It should be the very first post in this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Good? What is Bad? What is Ultimate Good? What is Ultimate Bad?

Would Ultimate Good do something bad? Think about it. Perfect love, perfect being, deciding to do something bad, or even worse, encouraging to do something bad or setting up an institution that rails against our senses of justice and good.

I know slavery has to rank right up there with the worse of bad -- a scourge on our humanity. But, yet, Jesus never spoke one word against its evils. And, I am not sure the Bible anywhere speaks one word directly against it and its evils. Does someone know a verse where slavery is condemned as being wikid? I think the BWOG has some harsh things and punishments for the infidelity of an unfaithful wife. I think the BWOG has some harsh criticisms for a lazy or disrespectful son. Even some harsh judgments of witches. Even a man who is careless with his oxen gets to see his beasts stoned to death. But, not one word against the wikidness of slavery!

Some of the newer versions of the Bible try to sweep away a lot of the verses which were originally written as ?gslaves?h into ?gservants?h because the word is an embarrassment. Best to minimise its appearance whenever one can. But, most authorities on the Bible understand that ?gslaves?h are what is really being talked about in those verses.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

But, why should BGOD or any of its characters be against it (i.e. slavery)? BGOD instituted it in the Bible and then set about to regulate it!

Joel 3:8 I will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away." The LORD has spoken.

But, where is BGOD? Isn`t He omnipotent and everywhere at all times? Surely he wouldn`t deny His graciousness to the little ones amongst those sold, would he? Or is He not a discriminating punisher of crimes, matching them to the guilty parties appropriately and fairly? He shouldn`t deny his Spirit to little ones, because if he is everywhere the Bible reminds us:


2 Cor 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Now, I don`t know about you, but if the BLord is everywhere because He is omnipotant, how could people be in slavery if the Spirit is with them? There is not ?gfreedom?h in ?gslavery?h unless you are going to say the Bible is a conspiracy of oxymorons.

What is your explanation for slavery instituted and regulated by BGod and why is there a failure of the Bible to speak out against this evil but does not fail to speak out against other things which we know as inherantly wikid?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The below is Sabro`s that I moved from "The Bible is not the WOG" thread:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrowrote:
About the slavery issue- you got me, I don't have a good answer--
If I could create my own God and write my own Bible, I would take everything out about slavery except a scathing condemnation. I would also make it far more gender equitable. But unfortunately that is not my task as a believer. There it is, and I have to deal with it: The OT has regulations concerning slavery and there are a lot of them. Common (Jewish) could only be kept for six years. Every jubilee year, all of them were freed. Escaped slaves could not be returned to their masters and were alowed to stay where they were. Slaves captured in war or bought abroad could be kept indefinitly. There are a lot of other rules, some regarding practices that I definitely disagree with. (But there is a lot in the OT that is disagreeable.) It may have been necessary at that time for those people. The NT is rather silent except for an admonition for slaves to be obediant and masters to be humane. There are a couple of other places that keep the status quo. It (Paul) also says that we are not slaves or masters but all the same in Christ. I'm not certain why Jesus did not condemn it, but I'm certainly not embarassed by it.
Other than that what you covered was not inaccurate.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Moved from "The Bible is not the WOG" thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabro wrote:
The contradiction in your second post is a mischaracterization of scripture. Certainly I would have liked the early church to free all the slaves in a physical, temporal manner- as it fits my modern sensibilities, but the best Paul and other NT writers came up with was to be obediant, treat each other humanely and in love and as equals. The freedom in that verse is a spiritual freedom- not free from the pain, worry, temptation, hardships or tribulations of this life-- including slavery-- but spiritually free and free from the bondage of sin. (Not a whole lot of solice to the suffering non-believer or the sufering slave.)

 

[Revenant]

No, it won`t because you are in error with your analysis of my style and dishonest evaluation of Sabro's intolerant and baseless claims of "bigotry and intolerance." As for the others, a few over an even lesser few does not mean the majority is right. It could mean they are all wrong and are just piling on to give aid to a friend. I choose the latter.

It has nothing to do with Sabro, and entirely to do with the way you debate. As I have already said in the other thread, there are atheists here who can voice their objections to Christianity without being a c*nt about it. Something about this entire thing resembles an interrogation, and not a debate wherein people have an actual discussion.

 

[No-name]

I always have been, therefore I have nothing to change.
You on the other hand:
Do you think you can appreciate witticism, correct word usage, and reframe from calling me a bigot, intolerant, and filled with hate, and accept that Xtianity has no status deserving of special consideration and criticims no different from Nazism, Communism, genocide, rape, etc... in the arena of ideas and opinions?
If you hadn`t pressed those childish and baseless accusations and put them there repeatedly as cues for your forum friends to pile on, the disussion could have been more further advanced by now.

You have not indicated that you can accept the opinions or beliefs of another, nor practiced tolerance of the religion, traditions or culture of others, nor have you demomstrated that you have an open mind on any issue. I think you have proven my point for me. And more often than not, civility is and exception in your behavior.

By the way, anything I say that was offensive- is just a witticism. I can back that up with quotes from Justin Timberlake and John Rocker.

 

[Maciamo]

It has nothing to do with Sabro, and entirely to do with the way you debate. As I have already said in the other thread, there are atheists here who can voice their objections to Christianity without being a c*nt about it. Something about this entire thing resembles an interrogation, and not a debate wherein people have an actual discussion.

Well, I do find SVF's way of discussing to be just my idea of what the word "debate" means. And I learnt to debate about Christianity with Catholic priests who served as religion teachers in my highschool. :blush:

 

[Maciamo]

You have not indicated that you can accept the opinions or beliefs of another, nor practiced tolerance of the religion, traditions or culture of others, nor have you demomstrated that you have an open mind on any issue. I think you have proven my point for me. And more often than not, civility is and exception in your behavior.

If tolerance means for you never to criticise differences in beliefs, then there would be no debate at all ! Tolerance means that you don't seek to "convert or exterminate" people with different beliefs, like the Christians did for centuries. As long as you are not discriminated against for what you believe in, discussion can perfectly well be about disagreeing and trying to demonstrate an argument.

Again, if you are ready to debate, why don't you stop complaining about "people not accepting your religious beliefs as they are without criticism" ? You can't debate without criticism ! What's more we are free to criticise Christianity as much as we like, as it is part of the freedom of speech and thought. You are free to defend your ideas and beliefs, but you don't have to, as we are not criticising you but a religion (not someone).

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro wrote: The freedom in that verse is a spiritual freedom- not free from the pain, worry, temptation, hardships or tribulations of this life-- including slavery-- but spiritually free and free from the bondage of sin.[/b]

Sabro, what do you mean by "spiritual freedom" and "spiritually free?" Could you please define that concept in detail by being specific?

Can one who has never accepted the SOG (Son of God -- a.ka. Jesus) still be "spiritually free?"

Is it a sin to not accept the SOG?

Are non Xtians by virtue of them not being Xtians (either deliberately refusing to accept Christ or not having known Christ) sinning and therefore cannot, or never while they are in that state, experience "spiritual freedom?"

According to your beliefs based on the hijacked Jewish BWOG, is spiritual freedom something only meant for or capable of Xtians experiencing?

(Not a whole lot of solice to the suffering non-believer or the sufering slave.)

Yes, it sounds like a trite plattitude coined to keep slaves oppressed and the status quo in place by not allowing them, or even giving them the thought or encouragement to agitate for change.

In addition it sounds arrogant implying that those who "do not" have the spiritual freedom releasing them from Xtian sin in the doctrins of Xtianity, are existing is some kind of state of suffering and that that suffering is ALL their fault for not being Xtian.

 

[No-name]

Maciamo- I've got no problem with discussion or debate...I've been comming here for a year and never felt that I was a target of intolerance until now. Mocking a person's religion, ridicule, and dismissive smugness is not debate. As for your summary of what I said-- that's not what tolerance means for me. I don't agree with your definition for tolerance either. The dictionary one was fine, but I have not come up with a better one, so I will leave it alone. Would you be okay with asking everyone to be civil and not mocking. I acknowlege that the line between criticism and intollerance is subjective, but it is clear to me that that line was crossed by almost any standard. We can discuss religion without making fun of each other and mocking one anothers beliefs. Right now, strongvoicesforward is behaving himself and I am content to let little things go.

SFV- What you said is largely accurate. "Spiritual freedom" is what Paul described in those verses. It would be available only to believers and it would come from the New Testament and not the Old Testament. It is free from the "Law" and its consequences- primarily death. It doesn't seem to indicate that owners had to free their slaves in spite of saying that we are all equal in Christ, nor does it seem to indicate that it included actual physical freedom. It has definitely been used exactly the way you indicated as a platitude to keep slaves opressed and discourged from agitating. If you don't believe, (probably through the positive action of rejection) you are still subject to the law and its consequences. (If you are entirely uninformed, you may not be liable to the law anyway.)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Maciamo- I've got no problem with discussion or debate...I've been comming here for a year and never felt that I was a target of intolerance until now. Mocking a person's religion, ridicule, and dismissive smugness is not debate

How many times do we have to tell you? You're just too sensitive on the issue.

Again, you didn`t demonstrate any concern for when I was attacked on another thread -- not offering any of your Xtian "love" to help when another was wronged -- in far harsher terms than anything directed at you or your religion here. Why do you expect help on a baseless perceived wrong when you couldn`t offer it when a wrong was baseless, outright insulting, and obvious?

You want favoritism for yourself.

As for being "dismissive," you showed the same attitude towards the concept of "The principle of equal consideration of interests," refused to be tolerant by not taking into account "History as a backdrop," now -- didn`t you? You refused and dismissed with arrogant glibeness the thought that animals shouldn`t have any rights equal to humans, basing that only on your arbitrary favoritism and for humans and intolerant view that they should be awarded the guarantee to the integrity and autonomy of their selves, and was rather disrespectful with the charge professing exclamatorily, "That is bullcr@p!" And then when I told you that should be curbed you came back smugly with cute words with the same meaning.
Stop being a hypocrite. Respect your sacred scriptures by practicing what it preaches. But again, I am not sure if the bible speaks against being a hypocrite, does it?

You have a serious problem with discussion and debate despite your declaration contrary to that.

And take notice: I`m here to stay and so is my debate style, so if you want to keep coming here for another year without whining all the time, learn to evolve because your debate environment has changed with me crawling out of the cybor ocean onto the shores of JapanReferenceEupedia.

I proclaim this period the "promordial soup age" of strong debate moving forward to claim cyber space in this little corner of the internet. Move over and make room. All week-kneed people start a thread on J-rock and park yourself there.

Forward to the heart of the matter: Good arguments are not to dilly dance around the issues -- they are to come crashing down on falsehoods and asserted truth with the force of an ax.

STRONG HEARTS FORWARD! STRONG VOICES FORWARD!

 

[No-name]

What is "The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests?"