Finding Faith

JimiTime · 04-04-2008 10:49PM

iUseVi wrote: »

imo it has been diluted by making it a grey area. PDN has expressed that he thinks slavery is OK in certain circumstances. I do not think this is the case. Please excuse me for holding my ground in this and coming to a "hasty conclusion".

daithifleming asked a very straightforward question and while he/she may have been satisfied with your answers, I would still maintain that the central issue is being side-stepped. Does God approve of slavery or not? The answer from some appears to be "sometimes".

Does that curb your curiosity in this topic?

i suppose I'm just baffled at your stance. the question has been answered very honestly. it hasn't been skirted around. So would you consider a chain gang a form of slavery? would you consider a soldier having to serve in the army for a time a form of slavery? i think that it is very reasonable to conclude that these things are forms of slavery. the fact that they are, means that 'slavery' as a whole, and not just in the brutal afro-american connotations it provokes, 'is' a grey area. you've not reasoned why you think its not. just that you think its black and white, and thats it.

iUseVi · 04-04-2008 11:03PM

JimiTime wrote:

i suppose I'm just baffled at your stance. the question has been answered very honestly. it hasn't been skirted around. So would you consider a chain gang a form of slavery?

Depends on the situation. I do think punishment really is different from slavery though. Its not like the state in any way owns prisoners.

JimiTime wrote:

would you consider a soldier having to serve in the army for a time a form of slavery?

A soldier does have the option of quitting. Perhaps it is frowned upon and they will lose there pension etc, etc. but never the less. Also, they chose to join the army. Most slaves do not choose to become slaves!

JimiTime wrote:

i think that it is very reasonable to conclude that these things are forms of slavery. the fact that they are, means that 'slavery' as a whole, and not just in the brutal afro-american connotations it provokes, 'is' a grey area. you've not reasoned why you think its not. just that you think its black and white, and thats it.

I wouldn't be here discussing if I thought my I could never change my mind on a topic. Clearly you don't agree but slavery in my book is when you own someone, not when the state punishes them(prisoner) or they work for you in a long term contract(army).

When I say I think it is black and white, I mean that in a moral sense. Forcing an innocent individual to do something against their will.

JimiTime · 04-04-2008 11:29PM

iUseVi wrote: »

When I say I think it is black and white, I mean that in a moral sense. Forcing an innocent individual to do something against their will.

Ok, so now we've just gone into the grey area we've ben talking about. Forcing an 'innocent' individual. So if someone is guilty of something, can they be made a slave of?

Zombrex · 04-04-2008 11:37PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

I never said He did - only that He did so for divorce. The point was that divorce was legislated for even though God hated it - so a thing being permitted in the Mosaic law does not prove it is good in God's sight.

There isn't a single passage in the Bible that states God hated slavery.

There are a number of passages in the Bible where God commands his people to go and take slaves from conquerors lands.

Your argument that "they deserved it" is rather irrelevant to that.

To say that God hated slavery, but commanded that non-Hebrews would be enslaved because they deserved to be enslaved, is nonsense. God obviously like slavery an awful lot when he was using it to better the Hebrews and oppress their neighbours.

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 10:53AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, so now we've just gone into the grey area we've ben talking about. Forcing an 'innocent' individual. So if someone is guilty of something, can they be made a slave of?

I would say no. But you would say it doesn't matter what I say, its the word of God that is important. Which brings us full circle. Is, or is not God OK with slavery.

Honestly at this point I am really not expecting a coherent answer. I know the scriptures at least as well as you do, and there is clearly conflicting information. (although since I am biased there is clearly more endorsing slavery....)

See here for a list of scriptures that both support and do not support slavery.
Warning: you may see it as a biased link, but its the only list I knew of.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/slavery.html

JimiTime · 05-04-2008 11:41AM

iUseVi wrote: »

Is, or is not God OK with slavery.

Honestly at this point I am really not expecting a coherent answer.

again, I am baffled? I'm not sure if you've been reading the preceeding pages on this thread, but I think it has been comprehensibly detailed. to the extent where i actually gave a yes/no answer to Daithi's question. you want to just form 'your' definition of what slavery was, is and will forever be and create your question on that. As PDN pointed out, its like asking 'Do you still beat your wife'. It has been stated, that the concept of 'owning' a person does not seem to be morally objectionable in principle when we reason the scriptures. If you read Wolfsbanes posts you will see, what I think is a reasonable assesment of Old testament slavery. The Hebrews were Gods chosen, so they were allowed own non-hebrews as slaves. So God did not have issue with this. In Gods sight they were lowlier than the hebrews. However, this form of slavery would be erradicated by the fact that with the coming of Christ, all nations could be Gods people I.E. No nationality was above another. However, this still doesn't mean that God finds it morally objectionable to 'own' a person under certain circumstances. You can't just set up a question in order to get a tabloid headline.

If you refuse to read and reason what has been written, I'll do you a favour:

Does God morally object to owning a person: On the evidence, and my current understanding. No. And if you read the previous posts you'd know that thats whats been said. No ambiguity or evasiveness, just a clear answer.

Does he morally object to Slavery: Well, there are many forms of slavery. In its basic principle I.E. owning a person. see the answer above. however, Slavery has become synonomous with the Afro-American slavery. This is certainly not Christian and definately morally objectionable to God. thats a very direct answer!

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 12:29PM

JimiTime wrote: »

again, I am baffled? I'm not sure if you've been reading the preceeding pages on this thread, but I think it has been comprehensibly detailed. to the extent where i actually gave a yes/no answer to Daithi's question. you want to just form 'your' definition of what slavery was, is and will forever be and create your question on that. As PDN pointed out, its like asking 'Do you still beat your wife'. It has been stated, that the concept of 'owning' a person does not seem to be morally objectionable in principle when we reason the scriptures. If you read Wolfsbanes posts you will see, what I think is a reasonable assesment of Old testament slavery. The Hebrews were Gods chosen, so they were allowed own non-hebrews as slaves. So God did not have issue with this. In Gods sight they were lowlier than the hebrews. However, this form of slavery would be erradicated by the fact that with the coming of Christ, all nations could be Gods people I.E. No nationality was above another. However, this still doesn't mean that God finds it morally objectionable to 'own' a person under certain circumstances. You can't just set up a question in order to get a tabloid headline.

If you refuse to read and reason what has been written, I'll do you a favour:

Does God morally object to owning a person: On the evidence, and my current understanding. No. And if you read the previous posts you'd know that thats whats been said. No ambiguity or evasiveness, just a clear answer.

Does he morally object to Slavery: Well, there are many forms of slavery. In its basic principle I.E. owning a person. see the answer above. however, Slavery has become synonomous with the Afro-American slavery. This is certainly not Christian and definately morally objectionable to God. thats a very direct answer!

Ok thank you! Yes that is a very direct answer. really much more direct and clearer than any of the previous posts that I supposedly haven't read.

God is cool with owning people. Thats all I wanting to hear. Ok, yes, I am guilty of trying to force you into a corner to get you to say exactly that. But please, don't accuse others of being unthinking and closed minded before you have thought it through yourself.

You have said that God has at times in history(in the case of the hebrews) has played favourites. Have you stopped to consider the implications of this conclusion? That God can at any time choose one person (or nation!) over another, and that He can also change his mind about who is and isn't his favourites. Its a bit like a parent deciding that one particular child should get all their love for a while, and then randomly changing their mind and saying that they now love all their children equally.

I'm sure you think its great that God loves all his children now, but he could change his mind at any time! I think he'll pick the Canadians as his favourites personally.

PDN · 05-04-2008 12:50PM

iUseVi wrote: »

See here for a list of scriptures that both support and do not support slavery.
Warning: you may see it as a biased link, but its the only list I knew of.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/slavery.html

I think biased is an understatement. I would say it is hopelessly one-eyed, theologically inept and intellectually bankrupt.

PDN · 05-04-2008 12:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

i suppose I'm just baffled at your stance. the question has been answered very honestly.

As regards the "honestly", it appears to work like this: if a Christian posts a statement that an atheist wants to hear then they get commended for their "honesty". This then carries the implication that those who don't answer the way the atheist desires are somehow being dishonest.

It's a pretty cheap debating tactic. Unfortunately it serves as a distraction when we have to confront genuine dishonesty.

PDN · 05-04-2008 01:03PM

iUseVi wrote: »

Depends on the situation. I do think punishment really is different from slavery though. Its not like the state in any way owns prisoners.

So slavery is only slavery when the slave is innocent?

A soldier does have the option of quitting. Perhaps it is frowned upon and they will lose there pension etc, etc. but never the less. Also, they chose to join the army. Most slaves do not choose to become slaves!

A soldier does not have the option of quitting. It is called desertion and, in time of war, gets you shot or else thrown into the glasshouse for a very long time.

Also, your statement that "most slaves do not choose to become slaves" shoes the wisdom of Christian posters in refusing to take the bait of a yes/no question. You are using the word 'slavery' in a different sense to how it is frequently used in the Bible. Many historians and theologians, for example, believe that most slaves in the Old Testament did choose to become slaves. People facing economic hardship would sell themselves temporarily into slavery and the slave-owner would pay off their debts. It was, if you like, getting a 6 year advance on your wages and therefore having to work for nothing until you had put in the hours to justify the pay you had already received.

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 01:14PM

PDN wrote: »

I think biased is an understatement. I would say it is hopelessly one-eyed, theologically inept and intellectually bankrupt.

Don't say I didn't warn you!!! But in fairness all they did was layout all the scriptures that deal with slavery in any way.

They didn't come to any conclusions or anything like that on that page.
In what way is listing scriptures: "hopelessly one-eyed, theologically inept and intellectually bankrupt."??

PDN wrote:

As regards the "honestly", it appears to work like this: if a Christian posts a statement that an atheist wants to hear then they get commended for their "honesty". This then carries the implication that those who don't answer the way the atheist desires are somehow being dishonest.

It's a pretty cheap debating tactic. Unfortunately it serves as a distraction when we have to confront genuine dishonesty.

You are generalising left, right and centre. I realise that remark was probably indirectly aimed at me.
I would freely admit that when I post on here, I have the vain intention of changing some folks minds in some respects. I expect I am wasting my time, but you never know. Of course I am happy when a Christian concedes a point, and respectively unhappy when I am clearly shown to be in the wrong. That's how debating works.

I think it really boils down to the fact that you don't agree with what I have to say, and you don't like it. Really now, if everyone had exactly the same opinion, how boring would that be. Accuse me of being closed-minded if you like, I prefer to think of it as determination.

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 01:18PM

PDN wrote: »

So slavery is only slavery when the slave is innocent?

A soldier does not have the option of quitting. It is called desertion and, in time of war, gets you shot or else thrown into the glasshouse for a very long time.

OK, point conceded. But they still chose to join up.

PDN wrote:

Also, your statement that "most slaves do not choose to become slaves" shoes the wisdom of Christian posters in refusing to take the bait of a yes/no question. You are using the word 'slavery' in a different sense to how it is frequently used in the Bible. Many historians and theologians, for example, believe that most slaves in the Old Testament did choose to become slaves. People facing economic hardship would sell themselves temporarily into slavery and the slave-owner would pay off their debts. It was, if you like, getting a 6 year advance on your wages and therefore having to work for nothing until you had put in the hours to justify the pay you had already received.

Tough choice, extreme poverty, or slavery. Mmmm, I think I'll take the slavery please!:rolleyes:
Even if they did "choose" to become slaves, they hardly did so because they wanted to, did they now?

PDN · 05-04-2008 01:30PM

iUseVi wrote: »

Don't say I didn't warn you!!! But in fairness all they did was layout all the scriptures that deal with slavery in any way.

They didn't come to any conclusions or anything like that on that page.
In what way is listing scriptures: "hopelessly one-eyed, theologically inept and intellectually bankrupt."?? .

They certainly did come to conclusions in that they labelled the Scriptures as pro or anti slavery.

For example, a verse where Paul advises slaves to obey their masters is not pro-slavery. You might as well argue that Christ's command to turn the other cheek when slapped is thereby endorsing the practice of striking people in the face. Such verses advised people in certain circumstances how to behave, but were not approving the morality of those circumstances. A reasonably intelligent nine year old would be able to see that simple fact, but the authors of the Skeptics Annotated Bible pretend not to do so.

You are generalising left, right and centre. I realise that remark was probably indirectly aimed at me.
I would freely admit that when I post on here, I have the vain intention of changing some folks minds in some respects. I expect I am wasting my time, but you never know. Of course I am happy when a Christian concedes a point, and respectively unhappy when I am clearly shown to be in the wrong. That's how debating works.

I think it really boils down to the fact that you don't agree with what I have to say, and you don't like it. Really now, if everyone had exactly the same opinion, how boring would that be. Accuse me of being closed-minded if you like, I prefer to think of it as determination.

Yes, I am generalising, which is what someone usually does when they make a comment about how things appear to generally operate. :rolleyes:

You can disagree with me all you like, and it certainly doesn't upset me in the slightest. You can be as determined or as closed-minded as you like. But that is a totally different issue from that of dishonesty.

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 01:35PM

PDN wrote: »

You can disagree with me all you like, and it certainly doesn't upset me in the slightest. You can be as determined or as closed-minded as you like. But that is a totally different issue from that of dishonesty.

Where have I been dishonest??!!:eek::(

PDN · 05-04-2008 01:36PM

iUseVi wrote: »

Tough choice, extreme poverty, or slavery. Mmmm, I think I'll take the slavery please!:rolleyes:
Even if they did "choose" to become slaves, they hardly did so because they wanted to, did they now?

Come off it, all of us make choices to do things that we don't want to because we prefer it to the alternative.

I don't want to pay 1000 euro a month for a mortgage, but I choose to do so because I prefer it to the alternative of not owning a home.

The Scots-Irish settlers in America didn't want to work as indentured servants for 7 years, but they preferred it to the alternative of a lifetime of poverty and religious discrimination on account of their Presbyterianism.

An Old Testament Hebrew didn't want to become a temporary slave for 6 years, but he preferred it to the alternative of starvation.

A Moabite soldier fighting Israelite forces in a war didn't want to surrender and become a slave, but he preferred it to fighting on and getting killed.

PDN · 05-04-2008 01:38PM

iUseVi wrote: »

Where have I been dishonest??!!:eek::(

I never stated you were.

I pointed out that it is a poor debating tactic to pat your opponent on the back and call them "honest" because they give you the answer you want to hear.

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 01:48PM

PDN wrote:

Come off it, all of us make choices to do things that we don't want to because we prefer it to the alternative.

I don't want to pay 1000 euro a month for a mortgage, but I choose to do so because I prefer it to the alternative of not owning a home.

The Scots-Irish settlers in America didn't want to work as indentured servants for 7 years, but they preferred it to the alternative of a lifetime of poverty and religious discrimination on account of their Presbyterianism.

An Old Testament Hebrew didn't want to become a temporary slave for 6 years, but he preferred it to the alternative of starvation.

A Moabite soldier fighting Israelite forces in a war didn't want to surrender and become a slave, but he preferred it to fighting on and getting killed.

All true, but just because it is the lesser of two evils doesn't make it OK.
Would not this have been better for the Israelites to say to a Moabite:

"OK, we could have destroyed you, or taken you as our slaves. Instead we choose to have mercy, we forgive you. You are free to live in our land. Just don't cause any trouble....."

Now that would have been moral fibre. It is also clearly ridiculous, I admit that. It would not have made logical sense, especially in those times. However, since they received their direction directly from God, they could be expected to be morally superior than the other regional tribes?

PDN wrote: »

I never stated you were.
I pointed out that it is a poor debating tactic to pat your opponent on the back and call them "honest" because they give you the answer you want to hear.

My mistake.

Ekancone · 05-04-2008 02:13PM

PDN wrote: »

I never stated you were.

I pointed out that it is a poor debating tactic to pat your opponent on the back and call them "honest" because they give you the answer you want to hear.

I prefer someone to say what is actually written in the bible instead of shifting the goalposts by saying those who face starvation or slavery, choose slavery as their 'choice'. Therefore, having slaves in this regard is somehow moral and is not really slavery at all.

This is complete nonsense. Slavery is slavery, end of story. It is having another person as your property and I find that morally reprehensible, no matter what form it comes in, no matter what context you put it in. What I find even more bizarre is that you can cherry pick what you like from the bible, whilst simultaneuously calling it Gods true word throughout. As I have said earlier, while I may disagree with you, I would have a lot more respect for you if you just came out and said:

'God says that it is moral to keep slaves, therefore keeping slaves is ok'

Much the same way you say:

'God says having gay sex is wrong, therefore we think it is wrong'

As it stands I find it hard to take your claim of the bibles authority seriously when you don't even treat it as you claim.

Fanny Cradock · 05-04-2008 02:24PM

iUseVi wrote: »

"OK, we could have destroyed you, or taken you as our slaves. Instead we choose to have mercy, we forgive you. You are free to live in our land. Just don't cause any trouble....."

I see... It would have been as simple as that?

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 02:29PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see... It would have been as simple as that?

Please re-read my post. I said it would be ridiculous and not make logical sense.

Fanny Cradock · 05-04-2008 02:54PM

I have read and re-read your post. I'm still unsure why you link moral superiority to an action that you have twice admitted is illogical and unrealistic.

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 03:07PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I have read and re-read your post. I'm still unsure why you link moral superiority to an action that you have twice admitted is illogical and unrealistic.

Think about it. The morally correct thing to do is often not the logical thing to do. Why would I give my money to charity when I could hold on to it and keep it for myself? Why feed the hungry when I could store the food away for the winter years?

There is perhaps an argument that in the long term it is logical. E.g. if you find yourself in the situation where you need the food, and the person you previously helped now has the food. He/she may be more likely to reciprocate if you had previously helped them.

But in most cases these days you will never again meet the person you helped. Especially in the case of a charity that helps people in a foreign land, etc.

Therefore it is not usually logical to do the morally right thing.

Does that make it clearer?

Fanny Cradock · 05-04-2008 05:44PM

Alas, no - your position is no clearer to me

Drawing 'morally correct' parallels between an altruistic act such as giving money to charity with that of releasing a hostile army is quite a leap. If, however, you can explain how letting a potentially rapacious force roam your land should be qualified as 'moral' I might be able to see the light, so to speak. A difficult task I'd imagine, especially when you have on a number of occasions admitted that such an action would be ridiculous (your word) and I would say potentially 'suicidal'.

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 06:04PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Alas, no - your position is no clearer to me Drawing 'morally correct' parallels between an altruistic act such as giving money to charity with that of releasing a hostile army is quite a leap. If, however, you can explain how letting a potentially rapacious force roam your land should be qualified as 'moral' I might be able to see the light, so to speak. A difficult task I'd imagine, especially when you have on a number of occasions admitted that such an action would be ridiculous (your word) and I would say potentially 'suicidal'.

Would you agree that most moral acts are not actually logical? That was my main point.

PDN · 05-04-2008 06:05PM

daithifleming wrote: »

Slavery is slavery, end of story. It is having another person as your property and I find that morally reprehensible, no matter what form it comes in, no matter what context you put it in.

No, some forms of slavery are obviously different from others. When most people think of slavery they think of the African trans-Atlantic experience of the 1700s. Therefore the term 'slave,' for them, means somebody forced into slavery against their will, whipped, chained etc. this is why the whole yes/no answer thing is meaningless unless we define what we are in fact talking about when we refer to slavery.

You say slavery is owning another person as your property. iUseVi says slavery is when you own an innocent person. Robin says serfdom is slavery, even though serfs, in many countries, were not owned as property.

In some nations every subject was legally the property of the monarch. Was this slavery? Was a baron who was technically owned by the king in one country less free than the serf across the border who was technically owned by nobody?

An Israelite sold himself into slavery for 6 years and was paid his 6 years wages up front in return for doing his master's bidding. A soldier signs up for 6 years service in the army and receives his wages for doing the military's bidding. A Hebrew slave in the Old Testament had more personal freedom than a US serviceman in Iraq, yet both of them had voluntarily entered into the arrangement. Both could, under certain circumstances, buy their freedom. Why is the former more morally reprehensible than the latter?

iUseVi · 05-04-2008 06:11PM

PDN wrote: »

iUseVi says slavery is when you own an innocent person.

That's not what I said. At least that's not what I meant to come across, sorry. I said in my post, that in the case of prisoners that have committed crimes, it is NOT like the state owns them. Also I made a distinction between punishment and slavery.

btw, how do you link to previous posts? I can't work it out.

PDN · 05-04-2008 06:28PM

iUseVi wrote: »

btw, how do you link to previous posts? I can't work it out.

There's probably an easier way, but this is how an old technophobe like me does it:

1. Each post in the thread has a post number (eg this post is #178) in the top right hand corner - for some reason this is only displayed when you are reading the thread, not while you are replying to a post. If you click on the post number it will open that individual post up in a new window.

2. Right click on the url of that new window and then click on 'copy'.

3. When you are replying, left click on the 'Insert Link' icon (it looks like a globe and a paperclip, situated just below the smiley face on the toolbar above.

4. It will ask you for the url of your link. Rightclick in the formfield and then click 'paste'. Then click on the 'ok' button.

Voilà!

Ekancone · 05-04-2008 06:33PM

PDN wrote: »

No, some forms of slavery are obviously different from others. When most people think of slavery they think of the African trans-Atlantic experience of the 1700s. Therefore the term 'slave,' for them, means somebody forced into slavery against their will, whipped, chained etc. this is why the whole yes/no answer thing is meaningless unless we define what we are in fact talking about when we refer to slavery.

Slavery is defined as possessing another human as your property. I am not speaking of any historical context or otherwise. That is what it is.

PDN wrote: »

You say slavery is owning another person as your property. iUseVi says slavery is when you own an innocent person. Robin says serfdom is slavery, even though serfs, in many countries, were not owned as property.

iUseVi has just denied what you claim him to be saying, and I doubt Robin views Serfdom as being slavery. He was merely using an analogous situation (rather poorly, i might add).

PDN wrote: »

In some nations every subject was legally the property of the monarch. Was this slavery? Was a baron who was technically owned by the king in one country less free than the serf across the border who was technically owned by nobody?

Legally, one could regard this as slavery. In practice, it is nothing of the sort.

PDN wrote: »

An Israelite sold himself into slavery for 6 years and was paid his 6 years wages up front in return for doing his master's bidding.

This is not slavery.

PDN wrote: »

A soldier signs up for 6 years service in the army and receives his wages for doing the military's bidding.

This is not slavery.

PDN wrote: »

A Hebrew slave in the Old Testament had more personal freedom than a US serviceman in Iraq, yet both of them had voluntarily entered into the arrangement. Both could, under certain circumstances, buy their freedom. Why is the former more morally reprehensible than the latter?

Both of the examples you cited are not slaves.

Nice post, but all of it completely side-steps the fact that your God, in the Old Testament, stated that one should take slaves from people of other nations. Even from those within your nation as long as they weren't his special little pets. God is supposed to be all-knowing, outside of time and above the triviality of reason and logic. He is above the zeitgeist, outside of subjectivity and interpretation. He said that owning slaves is ok as long as you are one of his pets. His word is eternal, and you, PDN, must obey those words.

God says gay sex is immoral, you follow that.

God says slavery is moral, you should follow that too.

Anything else just makes your whole belief seem empty to me.

Fanny Cradock · 05-04-2008 06:47PM

First you would have to adequately define what constitutes 'morality' and for who. I'd argue that this would be a difficult task for a group like Christians who look to the Bible as the obvious basis of their morality. (I draw a sharp distinction between the morality of the Bible and some morality preached by Christian institutions). I suspect that reaching a consensus above a vague statement for group such as atheists would be considerably more troublesome. For instance, it is probably quite easy to find a person (be they atheist, Christian or otherwise) who would be of the opinion that charitable acts like giving out money to the poor is immoral.

However, operating on the basis that we both have similar definitions of morality. No, I don't think that most moral acts are illogical.

PDN · 05-04-2008 07:05PM

daithifleming wrote: »

Slavery is defined as possessing another human as your property. I am not speaking of any historical context or otherwise. That is what it is..

If you are referring to the Old Testament then you are speaking of a historical context. The books of the Old Testament were written at particular times to people in particular sets of circumstances. Therefore anyone who tries to interpret it without understanding the historical context is likely to make an ass of themselves.

Nice post, but all of it completely side-steps the fact that your God, in the Old Testament, stated that one should take slaves from people of other nations. Even from those within your nation as long as they weren't his special little pets. God is supposed to be all-knowing, outside of time and above the triviality of reason and logic. He is above the zeitgeist, outside of subjectivity and interpretation. He said that owning slaves is ok as long as you are one of his pets. His word is eternal, and you, PDN, must obey those words.

Ok, so you want to ignore much of the Old Testament teaching on slavery, on the grounds that it isn't really slavery. OK, let's concentrate on the case of foreigners captured and kept as slaves.

I don't see that the Bible said the Israelites should take slaves. There were rules regulating the treatment of slaves (more humane than in the surrounding nations), but that does not equate to a command to take slaves or even approval of the practice.

The Israelites were a group of escaped slaves from Egypt who were trying to claim the land for their future. This meant fighting wars against the Canaanites. I personally find the commands to kill the Canaanites much more morally troubling than the fact that they captured slaves - but neither carries any implication that I, as a non-Jew living in Ireland in 2008, after the coming of Christ, should kill people or keep slaves.

By the way, I would ask you to drop the reference to 'pets' since it adds nothing to the discussion and is clearly included for no other reason than to be offensive. Please don't troll in this forum.

Finding Faith

Comments