Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | EdB | 232783 | ||
Was it Pugnacity or something else? Beja in trying to expand the scope of the discussion cited some verses he felt would do just that. I on the other hand view anything that remotely suggests God views slaves as nothing more than chattel property as a contradiction of scripture. I believe the truth of scripture must always be defended. Using Beja examples I tried to demonstrate how that contradiction may have occurred. I cited the fact that many words used by the translators can and sometimes do suggest things that were never intended in the original language. How we must understand how our mindset plays into this, that when we are trying to establish something we sometimes focus on a word used in a translation of scripture which with our mindset seems to suggest something that the whole of scripture contradicts. This is a very common mistake, often exacerbated by the incorrect usage of Concordances as Original Language Dictionaries and Lexicons. My parting comments in the last paragraph was an attempt to say when we consider all of scripture we see God goes out of His way to insure man under God’s laws never commits the repugnant acts often associated with Chattel slavery. Things like the separation of the young (animal or humans) from parents. God’s law demands humane treatment of both humans and animals, forbidding man or animal from being worked to death or made to suffer. God’s law even forbids the withholding of food or water from slaves, demanding they be given food and water in accordance with their work. So yes I do take any suggestion that God promotes Chattel slavery as offensive to the truth found in scripture and to my sensibilities. Now if I did this in a less than Christian way I do apologize. |
||||||
2 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232785 | ||
EdB, Let me first make a plea for being given some benefit of the doubt. I do not advocate beating slaves to death, starving them, or any crazy cruelty. But I am wondering how tempered your statements have been by scripture. The two big instances that make me wonder are: 1. You state that seperating wife and children would be one aspect of slavery which God would not condone. Indeed the very idea that God would condone it would seriously offend you. However, have you considered this passage? Exo 21:1-4 And these are the judgments which thou dost set before them: When thou buyest a Hebrew servant--six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought; if by himself he cometh in, by himself he goeth out; if he is owner of a wife, then his wife hath gone out with him; if his lord give to him a wife, and she hath borne to him sons or daughters--the wife and her children are her lord's, and he goeth out by himself. How does this fit with your thoughts? 2. I'm by no means even competent in Hebrew. But I do know the word you are speaking of in Ex 21:20 and you are quite correct that it is most natural the word for "silver." However, does this change the idea so much? Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Yet even with the word being translated "silver" is this not still at least slightly along that idea? If not how do you understand it? Let me post it again and substitute the word silver. Ex 21:20,21 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his silver. Does this really change basic idea of the two verses? Now, don't think that by this I mean all other nasty things that came with American slavery. All I'm saying is that your statements do not look like they have been tempered by scripture. If it matters, one way we might resolve some of the tension is to suggest there is not the connection between the idea of a slave being property or a possession with all these other things. I don't think I'm being unfair in bringing up scriptures like these. And again, please be gracious enough to not assume that I embrace every vile thing that has come with historical slavery simply because I post these verses. They are relevant. I ought not have to apologize for bringing up scripture. In Chris, Beja |
||||||
3 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | EdB | 232792 | ||
Once again it seems like in your effort to render my comments on slavery as not properly tempered by scripture ( your words) you end up painting a picture that could be interpreted as saying that from scripture we can come to the conclusion that God okayed or at least winked at chattel slavery. Once again I must clearly state nothing in scripture that I have found supports that idea and it stands in opposition to the truth of the whole of scripture. In your first example, read your stated passage again. When a slave reaches his 7 years of service and is given his freedom he may leave. If he brought a wife into his slavery he could leave with her. However if owner had given him a wife AND HE HAD ACCEPTED HER she and any offspring would still be the owner's property. He then faced the choice of staying as a freeman or leaving his family. Again he knew in the beginning that by accepting a wife in servant hood this may happen. I believe this example clearly shows God’s concern for the welfare of all while not rendering the concept of bondservant hood meaningless. This is totally unlike Chattel slavery where children were often sold away from their parents or parents away from their children without consideration for either. Point two by you own admission I never made such a connection and if we look at your word substitution, silver for the translated word property I think we see an even stronger case for what I was saying. Few of us view silver as much else as something valuable, something sought after, and something used to accomplish our desires. We usually don't view silver as property but rather as a means to an end. Bondservants were just that a means to an end. It usually got the person that was entering bondservant hood out of debt. And it gave the one that was taking a bondservant a contracted worker. I never suggested nor did I intend to suggest that you personally supported chattel slavery. What I suggested was in your effort to negate what I originally said about slavery could lead us to the conclusion that God okayed or winked at chattel slavery. And yes the word Chattel as used with Slavery is a word. It means to take a person and view them as less than human as a possession or object that is owned. That slave’s well beings only importance was in their value as a potential worker. Once again spoken in love but with an underlying question of why are you making it your mission to prove your point that my comments aren’t properly tempered by scripture. It is almost like you are stalking me, trying to catch me in an error or at least to embarrass me. I pray this is a false impression because forum rules clearly forbid the stalking of posters by other posters. You are making me feel very unwelcomed and almost as if you have a vendetta. Why I don’t know but if you persist I will be forced to contact the forum owner. Have a Jesus filled day. |
||||||
4 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232794 | ||
EdB, Well, I'm not sure what to say to that. You definitely have a persecution complex and I feel very confident that any review of any of our exchanges by any authority figure would come to the same conclusion. However, if it lets you rest easier, you may be assured that I don't intend to exchange posts with you in the future if at all possible. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
5 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | EdB | 232796 | ||
Thanks I feel better knowing you weren't intentionally picking me out to go after. I couldn't figure out what I had done. But I think it is best we don't try to discuss theology since you usually oppose almost everything I say. Best to you in Christ Ed |
||||||