100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Do you think that.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
...slavery, slaves and slaveowners are not MANDATED in how they have to treat each other, just in how they are NOT permitted to This does not make sense to me. If one is given instructions on how to not treat someone, then that is instructions regarding mandated treatment. sigh, there is no mandate to MISTREAT , in general, a slave/servant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 01/20/11 11:09 AM
|
|
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) 1. Male Hebrew slaves were bought 2. They were set free after six years 3. After that duration their freedom came free 4. If the slave married after becoming a slave, only he went free 5. If the slave loved his family he could remain a slave for the rest of his life, if he so 'chose' Gee... what a great job. Are you kidding me? males served a mandatory term of six years in return for room and board and MONEY(sometimes to them, sometimes to their families) and also, IF the slave loved his family, he could WAIT for his spouse to complete HER years and they could be together OR, if he had not the patience, he could choose to stay there with her in return for a lifetime commitment to service it was as much a means to an ends as any 'job' people seek today cultures change throughout the years, we now have welfare and adoption for parents who cant provide for their children, and during those times they had SLAVERY ,,,why would the bible prohibit the option for parents to see their children were provided for? please provide some other reason than because they were 'bought', would it be somehow more moral to 'give' them away to someone else to care for? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Pete's sake cowboy, what is not true? Sorry wasn't paying attention that you were referring to ALL kinds of slavery. Thought you were specifically talking about what it says about slavery in the bible. I apologize. I posted the verses in response to this comment and a couple others that are similar . Most, according to these external sources, were not voluntary, because most slaves entered into slavery as children who were sold by their parents I did this because the slavery in the bible is voluntary. The start of their slavery was anyways. Once they became a slave, they pretty much sold their entire self to their masters for 6 years. The problem with this 'interpratation' of biblical 'slavery' is that it does not fit the facts of 'interpretations' used in the last few centuries by the churches for which the 'bible' is the guiding document. Proof - Biblical interpretation was used by an major portion of society to justify slavery within the United States until the 'civil war'. Therefore your 'interpretation' goes against the accepted historical USE of that concept as recorded by history. You're talking about two different types of slavery. Again the slavery in the past few centuries was not along the lines of the bible. They didn't follow the guidelines and do as they were suppose to. Because again once the slave has served 6 years, he was to be set free if he wished. Again, just because people didn't follow these laws doesn't mean they weren't there and how it was suppose to be. And nothing about MY INTERPRETATION. It specifically says 6 years. No interpretation required, the guidelines was straight up about how it was to be done. Apples N banannas. It is your INTERPRETATION. Historically the INTERPRETATION has been far different... They did not follow YOUR guidelines in those days. COWBOY CHRISTIANITY had not been invented till your august self was born. Seriously... READ History of the United States re Slavery. The 'bible' was used to justify the perputal holding of slaves. Even the concept of 'evolution' was used (in a twisted way) to justify the practice as far as the 'bible' allowing slavery as you see it. Try that with me (or indeed most americans) and it wont be no 6 years... it would last all of 5 seconds and you would be eating your own 'whip'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the CIRCUMSTANCE of an instruction makes all the difference and the debate can go round and round so long as that basic reality is not aknowledged and this concept of 'bad' and 'good' being so black and white as to describe a type of arrangement as one or the other I will clear it up, CONSENT and LOVE and CARE(regardless if there is a monetary exchange ) are not 'BAD' Regardless of circumstance? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
males served a mandatory term of six years in return for room and board and MONEY(sometimes to them, sometimes to their families) and also, IF the slave loved his family, he could WAIT for his spouse to complete HER years and they could be together Funny cause the Bible states otherwise. Show me where this is supported in the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Pete's sake cowboy, what is not true? Sorry wasn't paying attention that you were referring to ALL kinds of slavery. Thought you were specifically talking about what it says about slavery in the bible. I apologize. I posted the verses in response to this comment and a couple others that are similar . Most, according to these external sources, were not voluntary, because most slaves entered into slavery as children who were sold by their parents I did this because the slavery in the bible is voluntary. The start of their slavery was anyways. Once they became a slave, they pretty much sold their entire self to their masters for 6 years. The problem with this 'interpratation' of biblical 'slavery' is that it does not fit the facts of 'interpretations' used in the last few centuries by the churches for which the 'bible' is the guiding document. Proof - Biblical interpretation was used by an major portion of society to justify slavery within the United States until the 'civil war'. Therefore your 'interpretation' goes against the accepted historical USE of that concept as recorded by history. You're talking about two different types of slavery. Again the slavery in the past few centuries was not along the lines of the bible. They didn't follow the guidelines and do as they were suppose to. Because again once the slave has served 6 years, he was to be set free if he wished. Again, just because people didn't follow these laws doesn't mean they weren't there and how it was suppose to be. And nothing about MY INTERPRETATION. It specifically says 6 years. No interpretation required, the guidelines was straight up about how it was to be done. Apples N banannas. It is your INTERPRETATION. Historically the INTERPRETATION has been far different... They did not follow YOUR guidelines in those days. COWBOY CHRISTIANITY had not been invented till your august self was born. Seriously... READ History of the United States re Slavery. The 'bible' was used to justify the perputal holding of slaves. Even the concept of 'evolution' was used (in a twisted way) to justify the practice as far as the 'bible' allowing slavery as you see it. Try that with me (or indeed most americans) and it wont be no 6 years... it would last all of 5 seconds and you would be eating your own 'whip'. not necessarily an indicator of much more than cultural difference,,, most americans wouldnt take a bike to work either, but in other cultures it is the norm the unfortunate thing of the bible is it is so complex and long, involves so many different examples of so many things in so many different circumstances,,,that it is often twisted and used to MISTREAT others and justify it I have heard the same thing claimed regarding women , using the bible to justify subjecting them to an inferior status they use this verse Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband's decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God's law (Acts 5:29). and twisted it to support theories that women are inferior or to be subject to men when in fact the relationship is in regards to HUSBANDS AND WIVES, not merely men and women in general, and the fact that the comparison is that church is to wife as Christ is to husband, would supercede any notion of a husband mistreating the wife as Christ did anything but mistreat the church and in fact LAID DOWN HIS LIFE for it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the CIRCUMSTANCE of an instruction makes all the difference and the debate can go round and round so long as that basic reality is not aknowledged and this concept of 'bad' and 'good' being so black and white as to describe a type of arrangement as one or the other I will clear it up, CONSENT and LOVE and CARE(regardless if there is a monetary exchange ) are not 'BAD' Regardless of circumstance? relative to any other standard that sets consent as the determination of good and bad (like our current cultural view of sexual relations of most sorts),,, yes relative to the BIBLE, no,,,that is why instruction is given throughout its words |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
males served a mandatory term of six years in return for room and board and MONEY(sometimes to them, sometimes to their families) and also, IF the slave loved his family, he could WAIT for his spouse to complete HER years and they could be together Funny cause the Bible states otherwise. Show me where this is supported in the Bible. my source is not JUST the Bible, (just like media, it cant possibly cover EVERY situation of EVERY person at EVERY moment) my source is historical references pertaining to that time |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msharmony: I will clear it up, CONSENT and LOVE and CARE(regardless if there is a monetary exchange ) are not 'BAD' creative: Regardless of circumstance? relative to any other standard that sets consent as the determination of good and bad (like our current cultural view of sexual relations of most sorts) yes relative to the BIBLE, no,,,that is why instruction is given throughout its words So let me get this straight. 1.)Regarding modern society... Consent, love, and care are never bad regardless of circumstance, because they are relative to the societal standards. but... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Is that right; is that you mean? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msharmony: I will clear it up, CONSENT and LOVE and CARE(regardless if there is a monetary exchange ) are not 'BAD' creative: Regardless of circumstance? relative to any other standard that sets consent as the determination of good and bad (like our current cultural view of sexual relations of most sorts) yes relative to the BIBLE, no,,,that is why instruction is given throughout its words So let me get this straight. 1.)Regarding modern society... Consent, love, and care are never bad regardless of circumstance, because they are relative to the societal standards. but... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Is that right; is that you mean? correct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msharmony: males served a mandatory term of six years in return for room and board and MONEY(sometimes to them, sometimes to their families) and also, IF the slave loved his family, he could WAIT for his spouse to complete HER years and they could be together creative: Funny cause the Bible states otherwise. Show me where this is supported in the Bible. Msharmony: my source is not JUST the Bible, (just like media, it cant possibly cover EVERY situation of EVERY person at EVERY moment) my source is historical references pertaining to that time Ok. So let me get this straight. We're discussing whether or not biblical slavery is immoral. 1. The facts in evidence are biblical verses that are brought forth which clearly state that a woman and children must remain with the slave-owner unless the male slave commits the rest of his life to slavery However, you reject that that was true about biblical slavery, and you base that rejection upon another source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msharmony: males served a mandatory term of six years in return for room and board and MONEY(sometimes to them, sometimes to their families) and also, IF the slave loved his family, he could WAIT for his spouse to complete HER years and they could be together creative: Funny cause the Bible states otherwise. Show me where this is supported in the Bible. Msharmony: my source is not JUST the Bible, (just like media, it cant possibly cover EVERY situation of EVERY person at EVERY moment) my source is historical references pertaining to that time Ok. So let me get this straight. We're discussing whether or not biblical slavery is immoral. 1. The facts in evidence are biblical verses that are brought forth which clearly state that a woman and children must remain with the slave-owner unless the male slave commits the rest of his life to slavery However, you reject that that was true about biblical slavery, and you base that rejection upon another source. no and yes, I dont reject that it HAPPENED during biblical history I reject that it was a MANDATE of slavery in general |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: So let me get this straight. 1.)Regarding modern society... Consent, love, and care are never bad regardless of circumstance, because they are relative to the societal standards. but... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Is that right; is that you mean? Msharmony: correct So sometimes consent, love, and care are bad in the Bible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Pete's sake cowboy, what is not true? Sorry wasn't paying attention that you were referring to ALL kinds of slavery. Thought you were specifically talking about what it says about slavery in the bible. I apologize. I posted the verses in response to this comment and a couple others that are similar . Most, according to these external sources, were not voluntary, because most slaves entered into slavery as children who were sold by their parents I did this because the slavery in the bible is voluntary. The start of their slavery was anyways. Once they became a slave, they pretty much sold their entire self to their masters for 6 years. The problem with this 'interpratation' of biblical 'slavery' is that it does not fit the facts of 'interpretations' used in the last few centuries by the churches for which the 'bible' is the guiding document. Proof - Biblical interpretation was used by an major portion of society to justify slavery within the United States until the 'civil war'. Therefore your 'interpretation' goes against the accepted historical USE of that concept as recorded by history. You're talking about two different types of slavery. Again the slavery in the past few centuries was not along the lines of the bible. They didn't follow the guidelines and do as they were suppose to. Because again once the slave has served 6 years, he was to be set free if he wished. Again, just because people didn't follow these laws doesn't mean they weren't there and how it was suppose to be. And nothing about MY INTERPRETATION. It specifically says 6 years. No interpretation required, the guidelines was straight up about how it was to be done. Apples N banannas. It is your INTERPRETATION. Historically the INTERPRETATION has been far different... They did not follow YOUR guidelines in those days. COWBOY CHRISTIANITY had not been invented till your august self was born. Seriously... READ History of the United States re Slavery. The 'bible' was used to justify the perputal holding of slaves. Even the concept of 'evolution' was used (in a twisted way) to justify the practice as far as the 'bible' allowing slavery as you see it. Try that with me (or indeed most americans) and it wont be no 6 years... it would last all of 5 seconds and you would be eating your own 'whip'. Apples N banannas. It is your INTERPRETATION. Historically the INTERPRETATION has been far different... They did not follow YOUR guidelines in those days. COWBOY CHRISTIANITY had not been invented till your august self was born. It is not my interpretation, again it says it straight up and straight forward that these people are only to be slaves for 6 years less they wished to serve longer. It says it straight up. I'm not getting this by reading between the lines, adding something, subtracting something, changing something, and or anything else. The slaves we have recently seen in the past few centuries was not in ordinance of what God has told us. That's caused by greed. They didn't wish to get rid of their slaves after 6 years and have to buy new ones and then repeat the process every 6 years. Again, the slave ordeal we've been effected by in the past few years had NOTHING to do with what God our father has told us to do or not to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: Ok. So let me get this straight. We're discussing whether or not biblical slavery is immoral. 1. The facts in evidence are biblical verses that are brought forth which clearly state that a woman and children must remain with the slave-owner unless the male slave commits the rest of his life to slavery However, you reject that that was true about biblical slavery, and you base that rejection upon another source. Msharmony: no and yes, I dont reject that it HAPPENED during biblical history I reject that it was a MANDATE of slavery in general You don't reject that what happened? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: So let me get this straight. 1.)Regarding modern society... Consent, love, and care are never bad regardless of circumstance, because they are relative to the societal standards. but... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Is that right; is that you mean? Msharmony: correct So sometimes consent, love, and care are bad in the Bible? no, sometimes people can do things with the intent of love and care and consent, and still be making a 'bad' decision(my definition of what modern culture calls a 'bad' thing) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: Ok. So let me get this straight. We're discussing whether or not biblical slavery is immoral. 1. The facts in evidence are biblical verses that are brought forth which clearly state that a woman and children must remain with the slave-owner unless the male slave commits the rest of his life to slavery However, you reject that that was true about biblical slavery, and you base that rejection upon another source. Msharmony: no and yes, I dont reject that it HAPPENED during biblical history I reject that it was a MANDATE of slavery in general You don't reject that what happened? that there was a culture in which the women and children remained with the slave owner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your changing your mind then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your changing your mind then. nope, just discussing the many possible CIRCUMSTANCES within the institution of slavery |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about the fact that Moses purported to have been giving instructions from God to that culture about those mandates?
|
|
|
|
|
