In a perfect world slavery is always wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Christians offended by the Bible?
- Thread starter kassault37
- Start date
In a perfect world slavery is always wrong.
Interesting way to sidestep the question.
How about in the world we actually live in? Is slavery right or wrong in that one?
Slavery is sometimes the way to get from where a person is to where he is going. I believe in freedom more than slavery, of course. I believe every slave should be made free so that means slavery is basically wrong. I vote wrong.
Always wrong, or sometimes wrong, sometimes okay?
Sometimes necessary for God's will to accomplish. Mostly wrong. You did not take back slavery always comes accompanied by force. That is how I read your post. Slavery is not always associated with violence and force. When it is, it is always wrong.
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
People who were slaves would of had next to nothing. You didn't wake up one morning and decide being a slave was the best idea ever. You were almost always, if not always, forced into it because you were in need to survive.
That is correct. Being a slave has never been better than being free.
I think Crypty meant slavery is always forced by men. I agree it is probably always forced by necessity.
Slavery is always forced by men, if not with physical violence then by the threat of physical violence.
fantôme profane;3303848 said:
Deuteronomy 15:12,16,17,18 If any of your people--Hebrew men or women--sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant. Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because their service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do
You mean like a pierced ear?
And if the "servent" wants to go in the fourth year? What happens then?
If a person is free to go, I don't define that as slavery.
fantôme profane;3303876 said:
OK. We are defining slavery as being owned forever. It is always under all circumstances wrong imo So now we must determine where the Bible says there are two kinds of People, the free and the slave. Because that is what the thread is about, correct?
No I am not defining if as being owned forever, I am simply defining if as being owned, not being free. If a person is free to go after six years, then they are not a slave after six years. If they are not free to go before those six years then they are a slave before those six years are up. And if they are not free to to that implies either the use of violence or the threat of violence.
I will leave the Biblical debate to others. My point is simply that slavery always involves physical violence or the threat of violence.
How else do you suggest the person was kept for six years? What do you suggest changes after those six years? It seems clear to me that in the case you describe the threat of violence is removed after six years and at that point the person is no longer a slave. And before that point the person was under the the threat of physical violence and so was not free to leave and was a slave.
fantôme profane;3303901 said:
A "threat of violence" is a huge jump. Where do you get that? Do you really believe there has never been a slave owner that does not resort to violence? You say "it is violence that keeps them owned". It is many other things that determine the reason a person can not go free. The one I can best imagine is there is no where else to go. There is family ties. There is laziness. There is lack of opportunity. There is appreciation. Can you not imagine a slave who appreciates his master? It is because you are a man. OK?
Wether or not a person wants to go is besides the point. Lets imagine your scenario of a "happy" slave as a starting point. Imagine this happy slave wakes up tomorrow and is not so happy? What if an opportunity arises to go work on a farm for pay? What if he is suddenly contacted by a distant relation and wants to go and live with them? If you are a slave then none of these options are available. And what makes them unavailable is the threat of violence.
I may choose to work in a deadend job. Perhaps because there are no better options, perhaps because I am lazy, or perhaps because I actually like it. But that is not be same as being a slave. The difference is that if a opportunity came along I would have the option of taking it. A slave does not have that option.
And you have not answered my question. In the scenerio you provided what happens if the "servant" decides to leave after four years?
Last edited:
His wife who is the owner's possession can not go too.fantôme profane;3303910 said:
I believe if a slave gets an opportunity to leave, like you say, he can buy his freedom. If his master refuses and the slave leaves anyway, he is arrested if found and brought back. If you are equating being under arrest with violence I must concede. But I believe it is possible to be under arrest with no violence or threat of violence because violence implies intent to do harm and that would not be the purpose of the slave owner. His purpose would be to recover his slave in good condition. If his purpose was vindictive, then he is evil and not what we are talking about.
Yes I am absolutely equating being under arrests with the threat of violence, if not the actual use of violence
You have to remember when these religions originated. Women in history have never really been treated very well- and anything, including faith and religion would reflect that. If the faiths had started in this day and age, it might have been different- but there's no knowing that for sure.
Jesus, however, spoke to women, had female followers, stood up for women, and even kept a woman from being stoned to death.
kassault37
Member
If that's the case, then keep religion for its own time and setting and get on with the 21st century!
And big deal about what Jesus did, the New Testament also said that women are not allowed to teach and should not talk in church.
Keep religion where it belongs (ie. whichever damn century it originated from) and let your mind and life grow and expand outside of it. Religion only holds people back!
And big deal about what Jesus did, the New Testament also said that women are not allowed to teach and should not talk in church.
Keep religion where it belongs (ie. whichever damn century it originated from) and let your mind and life grow and expand outside of it. Religion only holds people back!
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
During my youth as a Christian I did feel very disgusted during the events of Saul and how he was ordered to commit an act of genocide upon the Amalekites in the 1st book of Samuels. Christians in modern times ignore the violence in their own books and acknowledge their existence but still they idly stand by and ignore it. Christians as a whole do not worry about these issues since they are born into their religion and often have little reverence to verses they dislike.