creative posts :

Your unreasonable opinion is not evidence that these people voluntarily and willingly submitted themselves to slavery. They had no other choice, just as the slaves in America had no other choice at first




where is the 'evidence' to the contrary?


slavery of the bible was a different animal than the slavery we condone today, but people tend to debate it as if its the same thing,,,, one was race based and GENERATIONAL, the other was not

one had virtually no rules set upon the slave master to treat their slave as humans, the other did


All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

And masters, do the SAME things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)

Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)

the slave master relationship was to be one or a mutual respect and godfearing nature,, just as the husband wife relationship, yet people seem to only see one of the two roles and not read further into how similar the requirements are for the other,,,

3. What did Jesus say was the most important commandment?

[Jesus said, "People of Israel, you have only one Lord and God. You must love him with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength."]

4. What did Jesus say was the second most important commandment?

[Jesus said, "Love others as much as you love yourself."]

http://www.sundayschoollessons.com/pent23mtles.htm

in following with CHRIST's lessons, man given labels lose their stigma

a husband and wife who LOVE each other, shall have no issue with certain roles and expectations as a compliment to each other

the same would be true of any other relationship in our lives

To the contrary of what Ms.? i'm unsure what you're asking here.

Are you denying that when given another viable choice that one will not choose to be slave? Are you asking for evidence of this?

I'm again unsure what this has to do with the immorality contained within the Bible.

Following Christ's lessons, granting that these are an example of such a thing, certainly would cause one to conclude that slavery is wrong now, and was wrong then.

evidence that 'THESE PEOPLE'(those spoken of in the BIBLE) didnt choose to become slaves


I am not at all asking what people do with 'viable' options as that is not truly any gauge that can be proven (viable meaning something different to each person)


I am only asking where is the evidence that people did not CHOOSE(whether viable or not) to become the type of slaves mentioned int he bible,,,this is not to say that previous to the words of the bible there werent already slaves or that there were NEVER any slaves which were acquired amorally or illegally

it is to ask where does the bible CONDONE the type of slavery we think of today,,,as opposed to the type of VOLUNTARY slavery that would have been the precursor to low wage work or welfare,,,,,?

This is an interesting one. I've also previously included it. This is direction/instructional behavior that being given to slaves. Specifically, it includes those slaves which have Christian masters. Seeing how Paul was clearly not condemning the slavery itself, but rather was promoting it, it certainly stands as a fact in evidence that the Bible endorses slavery.

Another peculiar thing to note here is that this is in the NT.

the peculiar thing is that sometimes people refuse to consider the considerable DIFFERENCE between the social dynamic of slavery THEN . compared to the social dynamic in more recent years

they are different animals,,,one is more of a willing contract with a foreseeable end and restrictions on the MASTERS as to how they were to interact within the contract

the other was an all out chattel slavery, where masters had the authority to do with their PROPERTY whatever they wanted to because the slave (and their children and their children,,,etc,,,)was ONLY property with no opportunity to ever be anything but and was not required to be treated as anything but


of course there were those who were captured, like modern day prisoners of war, but even then there was instruction given about their treatment and there were options for them to become free, UNLIKE the more modern animal of chattel slavery


asking who would be a slave is like asking who would be on WELFARE,,but then there was no welfare, there was no backup for those who could NOT provide on their own and so they chose to go into service,,,


we give labels like husband and wife, slave and slavemaster, and we equate the title with one type of behavior or another,,,,where following the doctrine IN LINE with Jesus example and teachings makes all those labels less imposing and the people assigned them merely compliments to a loving workable unit serving family, or community , or the Lord

creative, unless you are willing to accept that "enslavement" was or may have been voluntary, there's no more for you to understand.

I get it, really I do, but one has to research these thing on their own. It's obvious that you're not going to believe anyone here.

You have to take into consideration the society at the time. There wasn't a whole lot of alternatives.

You may also wanna look up the meaning of "turn the other cheek", if you find the right wiki, you'll understand how slaves were to be treated by "beating" them.


just for gitz n shiggles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible



edit*
You also have to love the fact that the Hebrew word translated as "slave" is also translated as "servant".

I suggest we really think about what is being said here...

Where is the evidence that you would not willfully choose to be beaten to near death? I mean, that is exactly the kind of evidence that you're asking me for Msharmony. Is this really in question here?

The entire known history of mankind stands in reasonable opposition of thinking otherwise. A claim that humans choose to be free is just plain common sense. Slavery is an unsustainable societal condition. It is because of the fact that humans have a natural yearning to be free, that slaves will revolt. That is a fact, in and of itself. It is self-evident and has been proven time and time again.

Would you, Msharmony, submit yourself to such conditions if you had a choice in the matter? Do you - or anyone else here for that matter - know of anyone else that would choose to be slave?



I trust that we can all agree that any objection that is based upon what the term "viable" means completely misses the point of the argument being put forth against this so-called voluntary form of biblical slavery. Having another option -any other option - is the only determining factor that can be used to establish whether slavery is chosen or forced upon another human.

I further hold that because I assume that no one here would choose to live under those kinds of circumstances, we can all agree that those slaves did not choose it either.



There is no reason to believe that the behaviors involved in biblical slavery were significantly different than slavery in America. Holding that slavery in biblical times is some sort of willfully entered into contract is self-contradictory to begin with. If it were a willful and voluntary agreement, why is the concept of slavery used throughout the Bible in direct and oppositional ways to freedom? I mean, according to the Bible did not God free the Israelites from slavery?

How is that to be reconciled with the claim that Biblical slavery was a freely chosen living condition? The burden of proof lies upon the shoulders of s/he who claims that biblical slavery was a freely chosen way to live, for that is the claim that contradicts everything we know about ourselves. Slavery and freedom are mutually exclusive conditions. One cannot be both simultaneuosly.

I really cannot help you here. Whether intentional or not, you just seem to be missing my point.....peace,,,

I would say anyone who has ever joined the armed forces has submitted to the Biblical type of "slavery". Except that we are no longer allowed to beat our enlisted. (correct me if I'm wrong, there's a difference between what's allowed and what may actually happen)

There is no way to confirm this, and the text itself stands in clear conflict with this assumption. There are passages which describe biblical slavery, and none of those stand as fact in evidence to support the idea that biblical slavery was any different. The facts in evidence are the passages. The permissible acts towards slaves that are proscribed in the text include allowing a slave to beaten to near death, without the slave-owner being punished.

Did you even read what you posted?




You are blind because of misperception....

Slavery precludes being voluntary. I understand that society of that time practiced slavery. I also understand that slavery, as described in the text, is an immoral act of behavior, and that the Bible clearly endorses it in both testaments. I further understand that if that Bible is the word of God, then God endorsed slavery. God endorsed the idea that a slave owner could beat a slave to near death without punishment.

Are you saying that such a thing is a voluntarily entered into kind of contract?



Wiki does not stand in place of the various translations of the Bible itself that have already been put forth. Those translations are performed by Biblical scholars and are tediously performed in order to ensure their veracity in translation. Bibles are more reliable sources of information about what's in the Bible, wouldn't you agree?

The wiki article did not contradict anything I've claimed by the way, nor did it stand in support of the notion that biblical slavery was somehow different.

actually, there is, just by reading and researching

you will find most sources will refer to some types as 'indentured' servitude and others not

some are referred to as 'compulsory' and others not


all slavery , although founded in many of the same notions of 'service' were not carried out or legislated in the same manner


there is nothing in the bible to indicate that by mere birth someone would be a slave, or that branding and fear tactics were to be used, or that kidnapping was permitted, or that by the color of ones skin they would be socially 'inferior' to others


biblical slavery was more like indentured servitude in its biblical application, it did not make men inferior to one another nor did it oblige them to serve a human master for a LIFETIME,,,merely because of where they were born or what their skin tone was

people enter into all types of slavery, it is a semantics argument at best

do people not CHOOSE The drug they later become slave to?

do people not CHOOSE the materialism they later become slave to?

if we could let go of arguing the semantics of the term to look at the details of the circumstances,,,the debate could progress


IMHO

people enter into all types of slavery, it is a semantics argument at best

do people not CHOOSE The drug they later become slave to?

do people not CHOOSE the materialism they later become slave to?


whereas today, if people arent able to work to provide they have social systems in place (welfare,etc,,) to help them through, what do you imagine people BEFORE such systems did to survive and provide for their family?

It might have been the best CHOICE they had just like welfare or low wage jobs are to the modern struggling american, but there is always a choice(to humble oneself or starve,,,)

if we could let go of arguing the semantics of the term slavery and the fear that the concept of authority stirs in people, to look at the details of the circumstances,,,the debate could progress


IMHO

Yes Pan,

My mistake. Duly noted, recanted, and since corrected. Thank you for pointing that out.

Yours is the only argument being given over semantics. The text is clear on the kind of treatment that is endorsed by God. That kind of treatment clearly contradicts your semantic arguments. Slavery exactly as it is described within the Bible, does not resemble the kinds of modern semantics that you put forth. It resembles the kind of treatment that was common in all other forms of human slavery. Humans are sold as slaves. Humans are treated as slaves, brutally at times, perhaps not so brutally at others.

Nothing within the Bible constitutes reason to believe that biblical slavery was any better than American. There were plenty of southern American slave-owners, particularly the wives, who treated their slaves with more dignity than many others.

That does not justify endorsing the practice of slavery either.

I dont know how to debate this. What chapters or books are you referring to exactly which expresses this

'Slavery exactly as it is described within the Bible, does not resemble the kinds of modern semantics that you put forth. It resembles the kind of treatment that was common in all other forms of human slavery. Humans are sold as slaves. Humans are treated as slaves, brutally at times, perhaps not so brutally at others.'


what comparison are you making DIRECTLY, can you provide a biblical regulation which is similar to the civil regulations enforced in modern slavery?