Posted on 05/31/2009 9:26:02 AM PDT by Freepmanchew
“the abolition movement was entirely Christian in origin.”
This is not really accurate, the best i can tell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
Much of I had written it before, some of it from a Wikipedia page which i added much to, which has since seen some other editing.
I would agree with much of what you have said. Particularly with the view that a Christian’s view should be towards heaven and in doing so, give preference to that which will be rewarded in heaven even at the expense of that which is profitable in the world.
However, to say that slavery is evil (sin) is to take a step further than the gospel or NT is willing to go. While quite possible God’s intent ... going beyond God’s stated word, is not a comfortable place for me.
Call slavery unnecessary, call it unwise or foolish, call it ill conceived, call it a path unto temptation even .... but to ADD TO THE BIBLE (Rev 22:18) appears to be a dangerous thing and is not a step that I am willing to take.
I hope you are incorrect as to the number of people who would go willingly into slavery. A nation of slaves is not to be desired. However, I fear that your view may be closer to the truth.
I pray we never test that view.
I'm not being enslaved by banks, credit card companies or my government. I pay back what I borrow, I zero out my credit card balances every month and I vote on school bond issues, property tax rate hikes etc.
If you're being "enslaved" please tell me how.
Theological discussion about slavery can be confusing, at least to me. Plenty of theologians would have answered the question about why God allows evil with the response that God needed us to take responsibility for our lives and actions.
But when asked about slavery, those same theologians would have responded that if God or Jesus didn't say anything against slavery, it must be right and could only be ended in God's own time. Is there a contradiction there?
It’s really the socialist urge. We have millions of them.
Same way you are, you fool. every time the government prints more money than it should, and the dollar declines in value, you and i are enslaved. We are both fools for socking away money that depreciates. When a dollar is only worth a nickel, we are both fools and both slaves.
When the government provides for itself better than it provides for it’s people, we are fools and slaves.
When the majority of the voting public are idiots easily bamboozled, we are all fools and slaves.
“If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.” Ex. 21:2
This was modeled after the Sabbath rest, and so you did not serve 7 years but 6. Of course if the master gave you wife, then she remained, with any kids you had together. Otherwise you left with what came with, and far more, but no debt.
So you get permanent employment for that time, in which you serve “as a yearly hired servant...and shall not rule with rigour over him in thy sight. Lv 25:53
“And if sold to a sojourner or stranger then one of his brethren may redeem him.” Lv. 25:47-52
“And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:
Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.” Deu 15:13,14
>The alternative would be starvation.<
No, the idea was to preserve Israel, and charity was exhorted, and oppression of the poor forbidden, (Ex. 23:9 Lev 25:14 Dt. 24:14) and affliction of strangers widow, or fatherless child. was severely dealt with. (Exo 22:23-24); Or you could create a gov. supported welfare state, with its attendant and perpetuating problems. Or socialism (is there a difference?). Which for you?
And a bad masters were not encouraged, as
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. Deu 23:15
>going hungry rather than borrowing the money to feed himself, knowing the consequences if he did not pay up.<
Yes, borrowing money was not encouraged, as perhaps our present situation might confirm, though interest could not be charged”
Exo 22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
So a non-welfare means of sustaining oneself was enabled, in which you worked to pay off your debt, and were given a free “stimulus package” - not a loan - to get you going.
And outside of the tithes you gave, no taxes! I think it worked rather well, better than what we see today. And the worse is yet to come.
>That is, sacrificing your essense as a free person for a lesser value. She was correct about that. Many mistook that admonition for condemnation of altruism such as the soldier who dives on a live grenade<
The idea is “rational self-interest”, in which she said, The individual “must exist for his own sake “neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself”
She was likely reacting against Collectivism, in which the individual was forced into the subjugation for the group, such as is seen in cults, besides Communism. Willingly giving your life up to save others is not the same, nor is willingly going without so others can eat. Nor is eating, sleeping, etc., selfish if it serves to help others. Nor is it beneficial to subsidized indolence by continually helping those who can be productive. The Bible affirms all my statements. Rand might affirm my examples as being in the interest of self in the long run, while i see obedience to God as resulting in beneficence for others.
Rand operated out of the philosophy of Objectivism, which according to her, is “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
The problem with this is that it looks to the so-called “Golden Compass” of man as its source for determining what is beneficial “productive achievement” to man, but which reasoning can easily justify the manner of atrocities which men like Mao, Pol Pot, etc. and Communism perpetrated, and Kim Jong 2 threatens, just as Islam can do out of a religious basis. One operated without an objective proven transcendent moral authority, while the other does so out of a demonic one. However, while atheism loves to invoke the likes of the Crusades and Inquisitions as an example of Christian faith doing likewise, in reality these required widespread ignorance of the Scripture, and the subjection of them to an office which presumes authority over them, which was also the case in such things as the Utah War. Both stand in contrast to the message and methodology and means of the N.T. church in obedience to the example and words of Christ and His Spirit. Praise the Lord.
Not to be unreasonably suspicious, but a person joins a few weeks ago, and starts a thread trying to get Freepers to agree that slavery isn’t evil?
Yes it’s evil. The individual has rights. Only some form of a collectivist can justify slavery.
By that tortured logic, The Old testament talks about Saul being told by God (thru prophet Samuel)to kill all the Philistine babies and women. Does that mean its also ok to kill babies,,, sometimes?
I don’t like it, but so it would seem.
"Slavery" has existed as an institution throughout human history, but not always in the context of "chattel slavery" that marked American slavery.
A slave could be as simple as a person who worked for basic subsistence and answered to a master who was more of a paternalistic figure than an "owner." There is nothing in Christianity that would consider such an arrangement inherently evil, and in fact throughout most of the last 2,000 years it has been inherently accepted that this type of arrangement is probably more the norm than the exception.
Ayn Rand would say the soldier who jumped on a grenade was probably motivated by love for those around him. That he did not sacrifice his life, he willingly gave it away to protect something that he valued more, his friends safety.
She would say the same about a father who offers himself barehanded against a grizzly bear so his wife and children can escape to safety. That he did not sacrifice, he chose what was more important to him, and took it. “Sacrifice” to her would be giving up something you value, for something you do not.
“Just as with modern laws of warfare, if you are captured, killing a guard in an attempt to escape can and often is punished as murder”
Not true. A POW remains a soldier. If he can kill a guard, or a platoon of them, and then escape, it’s certainly NOT against the law of war.
Next, there is no such thing as VOLUNTARY slavery. That is a civil contract, the basis of freedom is the ability to enter into contracts.
Slavery is only about force. Toil AGAINST your will. And that can always be met with all the resistance it takes to end it.
A smiling baby, who has never offended anybody. You really think God ordered their murder?
I keep finding things like that in the old testament. I never see anything of that sort of activity done at Jesus behest. Seems like the more brutal people want to be, like justifying slavery, the shooting of that Abortionist today, etc,, the more likely they are to go into the old testament. Jesus our lord leaves em with little cover for such monstrous behavior.
The most people can get there is that, “Jesus never spoke specifically about that”. Theres a lesson in there i think,,focus on Jesus. “no man comes to the father but through me”.
You're right, that guy William Wilberforce--essentially the founder of abolitionism in the West--was really a Muslim. I should have mentioned that. I'm sure Wikipedia will be updated with that information soon.
Seriously, that Wikipedia article is big fat muddle. It essentially lumps everyone who ever said anything against slavery at any point in history in one big "opponents of slavery" list, which really tells us very little. Wilberforce is essentially the father of the end of the transatlantic slave trade, and his driving conviction was nothing but his Christian faith. The transatlantic slave trade was not ended by atheists, secular humanists, Muslims, or anyone but Christians. Truth is truth.
Slavery might not be evil; I’m not sure. Cruel treatment of slaves is definitely evil. There are those who would prefer to be slaves. Indentured servants are slaves by their own choice. In America, they were under contract to work for the Master until their debt was paid. That debt might have been ocean passage to the New World.
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.