Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Time to up the meds.
So tell me O great teacher: what is the difference between a Chattel slave and one that can be willed to children as property?
Yes. That's why it's safe to observe the sun directly with your naked eyes. No "reflection" is involved.
</flaming idiot mode>
Plenty. As I said, you have no understanding of the culture or the context of the passage. You are motivated only by your bias, which is quite transparent! So, trying to explain this very complex issue to you is a futile endeavor. Tell me, why should I waste my time trying to study this issue with someone who has no respect for true historical analysis and is motivated by militant skepticism? Why should I? Hmm? Our numerous exchanges on this thread have shown me that you aren't interested in the truth. It is for this reason that I try to avoid discussing the bible on these threads - it is pointless to defend the bible against someone with your attitude. Moreover, volumes could be and have been written on this topic, and you can't just brush it aside and make a hasty conclusion by posting a couple scriptures. The word "slavery" in these scriptures does not conform to your western idea of slavery. Simply posting scriptures from the OT is not sufficient to prove that God condones chattel slavery. Sorry.
However, I will attempt the beginning a response anyway simply because I want to convey to you how complex this topic is.
God says: Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
1. Clearly, God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:
Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery ]
2. The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the automatic freedom clauses (yes hebrew-hebrew slavery was not slavery at all, but economic bond servanthood and freedom was easily attained under redemption laws - have you looked those up?), but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for live' (implying that it was not automatic.).
3. The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:
"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)
As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.
Indeed, it must still be remembered that the nation of Israel was supposed to welcome runaway foreign slaves with open arms (Deut 23.15).
4. Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.
It should also be recognized that the Law did make some allowance for less-than-ideal praxis in the day (e.g. polygamy, divorce), but nevertheless regulated these practices and placed definite limits and protections around these areas. This foreign semi-slavery seems to have fallen into this category as well.
It is not to be expected that foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew servants, given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along these lines, to highlight the value of covenant membership.
Many more things could be said but it would require a book. For example, masters were held accountable for the treatment of their slaves and did not allow injurious beating of servants. You and I are children of the Western World, and are famililar with the slavery of the American South. The word 'slavery' to you and I is such a powerful vortex of images, meanings, cries, and grief. It is improper for you to attach a western connotation (brutal chattel slavery of the American South) to slavery in ancient Israel. Any technical discussion of any type of forced labor or corvee becomes immediately inflamed when the word 'slavery' is attached to it, and I suspect that many others share this association.
However, slavery as discussed in the OT in relation to the Hebrews is not similar to western chattel slavery in the antebellum U.S. Negro slaves were TAKEN FORCERFULLY and were slaves for life by law, and were not even regarded as human beings. This is clearly not the case in ancient Israel as can be seen in the laws governing the practice.
There already is a Book. It deals extensively with slavery but fails to mention that it is morally wrong. The words I quoted are not just any old words. They are attributed directly to God. You can apply all the Clintonian rationalization you want, but you just dig your hole deeper.
You started by asserting that morality is absolute; you wind up making a case that would embarrass a first year law student. What you have just argued is that moral laws depend on circumstances so complex and so convoluted that it would take a whole book just to explain when it is permissible to treat another human being as property. (What is the difference, by the way, between property and chattel?) And presumably another whole book to explain when it is permissible to beat another human being to the point where he cannot move for two days.
You started this fight by declaring that moral laws are absolute. Look the word up. I stopped posting to you when it became obvious you were an embarrassment to your religion. You popped up again to taunt me with your self-porclaimed intellectual and moral superiority.
Now tell me, O wise one, where in the Bible does it say in plain language that owning other human beings as property is morally wrong?
First, your biased attitude is starting to wear on my patience, and unless you begin to show some hint of objectivity or openness, I will end the discussion, as I don't want to waste me time on a myopically biased person. As I have stated and restated, the burden of proof is ON YOU to show me where it IS condoned. While I admit my knowledge on this issue is also limited, yours is even more limited. But I do know enough to realize that the bible does not condone chattel slavery of the type westerners are familiar with. The ONLY thing you have demonstrated is your bias and misunderstanding of scripture.
YOu refuse to see there are different types of slavery: bond servanthood of the hebrews, war captives, foreign slaves, and chattel slaves. That being said, however, there are certainly examples where the bible implicitly states slavery is wrong. For example, Paul instructs slaves to love their masters and masters to love their slaves. Tell me, oh biased one, what is the end effect of unconditional love?
Also, I invite you read the little book of Philemon (v.15-16) wherein Paul "re-introduces" Onesimus to Philemon, not as a slave, but as a brother - thus effectively abolishing the sting of the "master-slave" relationship, and laying the ground work for the eventual legal abolition of slavery by Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a historical fact that Christians are responsible for the abolition of slavery. Where on earth did they get that idea? From the love of Christ as expressed in the scriptures above for one.
If you are REALLY interested in learning more about slavery and the bible, I found a great on-site essay that treats the subject thoroughly. Go read it. But, please, stop making assertions about something you know very little about. It only serves to expose your extreme anti-Christian bias. Here it is:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html
Invalid conclusion. Some issues are quite complex. How does this prove that there is no moral absolute? I invite you take out your bible and read 1Corinthians 2:14, and the entire chapter of Romans 1.
If you don't want to take the time and go read the analysis on the website, then the discussion is over.
Since way back in post 1081, g3k has been asked: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?. Still no answer, except for dodges, evasions, excuses, and attempts to provoke a flame war (and thus an excuse to have the thread pulled).
It can't be very difficult for someone who has surveyed all Nobel Prize winning work and has declared that it all disproves evolution. An intellect of such sweeping power should be able to give us his answer. HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?.
Your insults roll of my like water off a duck's back. I will not respond in kind. I will simply say good-bye. Our exchange is ended - I will leave to the readers of this thread to decide who made the better case about morals. I will leave you to your anti-Christian bigotry.
Yes, like whether owning slaves is OK by God, and whether it's OK to beat them senseless. Really complex. Requires thousands of French intellectuals to work that one out. Good riddance.
I have a meeting in 20 minutes so I'll be brief and give a few reasons why the earth is young:
Because the growth of coral reefs has been measured, no coral formaton need be over 3400 years old
The same with stalagmites and stalactites Radiometric contradictions abound, making it unreliable.
The geologic column exists only in text books. If the earth's layers were formed over millions of years, they should be relatively consistent everywhere.
Human artifacts have been found in layers dating back millions of years.
Human footprints dating back 150 million to 600 million years ago have been found in Utah, Kentucky, Missouri, possibly PA and TX.
Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere's He in only 40k years. The atmosphere has not yet stabilized.
Lead diffuses from zircon crystals at a known rate. The rate increases with temperature. Greater depths and temps should reveal less pb in the crystals. If the earth were even a fraction of the supposed geologic age, we should be able to measure a difference in the crystals found in the first 2 miles of the earth's crust. Instead, no measurable difference is found between the crystals near the surface and the crystals deep in the hot earth.
Since you claim to be familiar with the oil drilling business, you may know that gas, oil and water are trapped in relatively permeable rock. The pressure disappears somewhere between 10k and 100k years. There is no possible way for the oil to be trapped for 50 million years.I am talking about serious men (often Christian men) who raise their families based on tests which tell them where the oil, gold, copper, uranium might be due to geological movements of millions of years.
Volcanoes belch a cubic mile of debris into the atmosphere each year. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old, about 10x the earth's volume should have been put into the atmosphere and that's at current rates. Evos claim that volcanic activity was higher in the past.
The rate of continental erosion indicates a young earth.
River sediment transport indicates a young earth
The rate of accumulation of minerals and salts in the ocean indicates a young earth.
Meteorite material is found in relatively shallow earth.
Meteoric dust accumulation indicates a young earth.
The rate of decay of the earth's magnetic fields indicates a young earth.
The rate of cooling of the earth indicates a young earth.
The rate of recession of the moon indicates a young earth.
The accumulation of dust on the moon indicates a young moon.
There are many more reasons such as OOP artifacts but I'm late for the meeting.
87 posted on 02/02/2003 3:33 PM PST by Dataman
.. .. .. 'lifted' (( link )) !
You have shown time and again how ignorant you are of history. Your simplistic comments and conclusions lead me to believe you have very little education. Couple that with hateful bias and voila - we have you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.