Finding Faith

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Those with long exposure to Christianity, on average, abolished slavery much earlier than those lacking such exposure.

You may notice those dates PDN, the 18th century.

Either it took Christianity over 1700 years to properly get around to abolishing slavery.

Or slavery was abolished very early on in the Enlightenment, a largely humanist movement that questioned traditional, largely Christian, position.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You may notice those dates PDN, the 18th century.

Either it took Christianity over 1700 years to properly get around to abolishing slavery.

No, history shows clearly that Christianity spoke out against, and attempted to ban, slavery on a number of occasions. For example, Pope John VIII, in 873AD, condemned the princes of Sardinia for the "great sin" of purchasing slaves and commanded them to instantly release any slaves they had purchased.

Human sin is powerful, and people (especially those in vested positions of power) will always attempt to find loopholes and ways to avoid Christian values and principles. Christianity has been opposed to social injustice from day one, yet social injustice still takes place. Christianity can, and should, speak out about this - but people still do what they want to do.

I am the first to admit that Christian history has been a long catalogue of hypocrisy and ecclesiastical prostitution (when the Church jumps into bed with the State, or big business, then it becomes their whore). There have been many Popes and Archbishops who have been particularly repulsive specimens of humanity. Yet, despite all this human sin, the Christian values outlined in the teaching of Jesus and in Scripture resulted in slavery being absent from most of Christendom for the majority of its history. The same values and principles meant that, following the upsurge of slavery in the Western world during colonialism, it was those nations with the longest exposure to Christianity that were the earliest to abolish slavery.

Or slavery was abolished very early on in the Enlightenment, a largely humanist movement that questioned traditional, largely Christian, position.

I suppose you think it was just a massive coincidence that the Enlightenment occurred in precisely the same countries that had long exposure to Christianity. :rolleyes:

The Enlightenment was a result of Christian values and principles that encouraged people to think rationally (on the basis that the universe had a God-given order) and to value science and art. While church hierarchies tried to prevent this upsurge of learning (because it was not consistent with the 'modern values' of the time) it was actually assisted by the Renaissance and the Reformation. The translation of the Bible into modern language, and the fact that people were encouraged to think for themselves about eternal truths instead of just swallowing the party line handed down by the hierarchies, allowed the kind of discussion and speculation that made the Enlightenment possible.

The Enlightenment, like the Renaissance, occurred in those countries with the longest exposure to Christianity because it was built upon the foundation of principles that developed only in Christendom.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, history shows clearly that Christianity spoke out against, and attempted to ban, slavery on a number of occasions. For example, Pope John VIII, in 873AD, condemned the princes of Sardinia for the "great sin" of purchasing slaves and commanded them to instantly release any slaves they had purchased.

No, history shows that "Christianity" half-heartily spoke out against slavery on a few occasions, and also condoned it just as much. Most of the time slavery was simply banned between Christians, with the Church happily allowing slavery of non-Christians.

It was not until the Enlightenment that any real progress was made in actually constructively stopping slave trade.

PDN wrote: »

Christianity can, and should, speak out about this - but people still do what they want to do.

Which is why we still have wide spread large scale slavery practised in Europe, America, Asia ... oh wait, no we don't.

Where the people less Christian back when slavery was rife or are they less Christian now?

PDN wrote: »

Yet, despite all this human sin, the Christian values outlined in the teaching of Jesus and in Scripture resulted in slavery being absent from most of Christendom for the majority of its history.

That is a gross distortion of history. Slavery was rife throughout "Christendom" for the majority of its history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

PDN wrote: »

I suppose you think it was just a massive coincidence that the Enlightenment occurred in precisely the same countries that had long exposure to Christianity. :rolleyes:

Where else was it going to occur? South America?

The Western Enlightenment (yes there was an Eastern one as well), was always going to occur in the west. What ever religion was the dominant one in the west at the time was going to be the religion that it occurred in. Christianity happened to be that religion. Which explains why the Enlightenment happened nearly 2000 years after the principles first explored in Greece.

The idea that Christianity was someone how the significant cause of the Enlightenment is ridiculous. If it was why did the Enlightenment take place 1700 years after the formation of the religion?

Christian rule, and the embrace of the supernatural and the after life at the expense of the natural and the here and now (considered by Christianity, more so than even other Abrahamic religions, as being a secondary concern), set back movements like the Enlightenment hundreds of years.

PDN wrote: »

The Enlightenment, like the Renaissance, occurred in those countries with the longest exposure to Christianity because it was built upon the foundation of principles that developed only in Christendom.

The Enlightenment and the Renaissance built upon the principles and philosophy developed 400 years before Christ in Greece and Rome, principles that were nearly destroyed forever by Christian domination in Europe.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No, history shows that "Christianity" half-heartily spoke out against slavery on a few occasions, and also condoned it just as much. Most of the time slavery was simply banned between Christians, with the Church happily allowing slavery of non-Christians.

No, Christianity spoke out against slavery on many occasions, as the wikipedia article you link to makes clear.

I am interested that you chose to link to an article that directly contradicts your argument:

wikipedia wrote:

Medieval canon lawyers recognized that slavery was contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and by the 11th century when almost all of Europe had been Christianized, the laws of slavery in civil law codes were now antiquated and unenforceable.

It was not until the Enlightenment that any real progress was made in actually constructively stopping slave trade.

Not true. Again, according to your wikipedia article:

wikipedia wrote:

Thralldom was finally abolished in 1350. However, by then thralls were rare, with most thralls having been given serf status, as this was more economically profitable and less morally objectionable

So, in Scandinavia slavery was abolished on moral grounds by 1350. I guess those pesky Scandinavians just had the Enlightenment a little bit early, eh?

Which is why we still have wide spread large scale slavery practised in Europe, America, Asia ... oh wait, no we don't.

I guess that depends whether you think 27 million slaves counts as widespread or not: http://archive.uua.org/ga/ga03/2051.html
Human sin still exists today and so does slavery. Christians are still working to end slavery (even if their spelling is worse than in Wilberforce's day). The young people in our church, for example, actively support a Christian initiative called stopthetraffik.org

That is a gross distortion of history. Slavery was rife throughout "Christendom" for the majority of its history.

My apologies, I should have said "slavery being largely absent from most of Christendom for the majority of its history". There were pockets where slavery existed among a minority of people.

The Western Enlightenment (yes there was an Eastern one as well), was always going to occur in the west. What ever religion was the dominant one in the west at the time was going to be the religion that it occurred in. Christianity happened to be that religion. Which explains why the Enlightenment happened nearly 2000 years after the principles first explored in Greece.

Maybe you would like to tell us how that "Eastern Enlightenment" affected slavery in the East?

Your interpretation of history is pretty warped. The Islamic world looked at many of the principles first explored in Greece - but that did not cause any reduction in slavery. Quite the opposite since Aristotle argued that some human beings are inferior and therefore fit only for slavery, and Muslims were enthusiastic slavers (understandable since Mohammed himself was a slave-owner).

Christian rule, and the embrace of the supernatural and the after life at the expense of the natural and the here and now (considered by Christianity, more so than even other Abrahamic religions, as being a secondary concern), set back movements like the Enlightenment hundreds of years.

If that were true then the Enlightenment would have occurred hundreds of years later in Christianized countries than in the rest of the world. For someone who claims to form his beliefs on the basis of evidence, rather than faith, you are doing remarkably well in ignoring the available evidence and holding an untenable position on the grounds of your faith.

The Enlightenment and the Renaissance built upon the principles and philosophy developed 400 years before Christ in Greece and Rome, principles that were nearly destroyed forever by Christian domination in Europe.

The Greeks and Romans were some of the most enthusiastic slavers in history. Yet you want to credit the abolition of slavery to a rediscovery of their principles which were 'nearly destroyed' by a religion that repeatedly spoke out against slavery. I suppose Wilberforce and the other abolitionists were really closet humanists who only pretended to be evangelical Christians? Your rewriting of history is truly astounding.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The Enlightenment was a result of Christian values and principles that encouraged people to think rationally (on the basis that the universe had a God-given order) and to value science and art.

"Scriptum est enim: Perdam sapientiam sapientium, et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo" seems a strange way to encourage wisdom.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

"Scriptum est enim: Perdam sapientiam sapientium, et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo" seems a strange way to encourage wisdom.

Why not keep it in the original language? γεγραπται γαρ απολω την σοφιαν των σοφων και την συνεσιν των συνετων αθετησω

We can all have fun ripping Bible verses out of context, but Paul is simply saying that salvation is not found through philosophical speculation, but through the revealed truth of Christ's death on the Cross.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Why not keep it in the original language?

Because "Perdam sapientiam sapientium" was a rather unpleasant motif that was used in religious art.

PDN wrote: »

Paul is simply saying that salvation is not found through philosophical speculation, but through the revealed truth of Christ's death on the Cross.

Yes indeed, he's saying that, but at the expense of also saying -- which was my point -- that philosophical speculation outside the bounds of christian thought is useless and will be destroyed by "lowly people". This isn't a call to rational thought, but a none-too-subtle invitation to avoid it. The full text is here.

When laid alongside the text of 2 Cor 10:4-5:

Corinthians wrote:

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

You can perhaps see why we should view with suspicion any claims that the bible enthusiastically endorses rational discourse.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Because "Perdam sapientiam sapientium" was a rather unpleasant motif that was used in religious art.Yes indeed, he's saying that, but at the expense of also saying -- which was my point -- that philosophical speculation outside the bounds of christian thought is useless and will be destroyed by "lowly people". This isn't a call to rational thought, but a none-too-subtle invitation to avoid it. The full text is here.

When laid alongside the text of 2 Cor 10:4-5:You can perhaps see why we should view with suspicion any claims that the bible enthusiastically endorses rational discourse.

What an absurd misrepresentation you make! IMO, you constantly undermine yourself with things like this robin. You are obviously a smart guy, so why is it you insist on playing dumb???

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Much of the slavery mentioned in the Old Testament was where someone in poverty sold himself to another person and worked for him for a set period until he was released on the sabbath year. This is similar to how many Irish emigrants secured their passage to America in the 17th and 18th centuries - by selling themselves as indentured servants. Providing such an arrangement had regulated conditions of work etc then it made economic and social sense at the time.

Other slaves in the Old Testament were captured POWs from wartime. Bearing in mind that the Geneva Convention was not in force at the time, such an arrangement was infinitely preferable to being killed or tortured.

We often make the mistake of reading about 'slavery' in the Old Testament and thinking immediately of the brutal trans-Atlantic slave trade that was based more on the ideas of Aristotle than on the Hebraic experience.

The New Testament does not explicitly condemn slavery. If it had, then I think it highly likely that it would have been stamped upon much more severely than it was. Any slave converting to Christianity would immediately have been deemed as having joined a subversive movement and subjected to the cruellest possible death. The logical extension of Christian values and virtues eventually made it clear to Christians that slavery was wrong.

Some articulated this earlier than others. St. John Chrysostom [345 A.D. - 407 A.D.], Patriarch of Constantinople, said "Slavery is the fruit of covetousness, of extravagance, of insatiable greediness" in his Epist. ad Ephes., Homil. XXII. 2.

Slavery was largely absent from areas where Christianity was the dominant religion from the fall of Rome until the discovery of the Americas. This can be contrasted with nations under Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist dominance that permitted and practiced slavery. Clergy and missionaries repeatedly tried to prevent the enslavement of Indians in South America. Papal bulls and excommunications were issued against the subject, but often proved ineffective since the Papacy needed the political and financial backing of European princes (think of modern governments that make mealy-mouthed declarations about human rights in China but do nothing concrete because they want the benefits of trade with China).

The fact that slavery flared up again from the 14th to the 19th Centuries is, in my opinion, a shameful indictment against Christendom. The fact that churches attempted to use the Bible in support of slavery is often cited by opponents of Christianity, but is in fact simply due to the fact that slave-owners tried to fight fire with fire. The primary motivation and arguments of the abolitionists were based on the Bible - therefore the slave owners attempted to use the Bible to justify the continuance of the practice. They failed.

Today slavery is still present in many parts of the world, mainly in those areas that have the least Christian presence and the least exposure to the Christian Gospel. No doubt Robin et al will claim that is simply a freak coincidence.

Slavery has, interestingly, been fairly common practice in regimes that have proclaimed themselves to be officially atheist.

I agree with much of what you say there PDN. But if I may be Devils advocate for a moment. If I was to ask you: Is the concept of Owning a person, Immoral in Gods eyes? What would the answer be? Even if others don't, I certainly do draw a distinction between the slavery of biblical times and the afro-american slavery of recent history. I suppose the hebrews in Egypt were closer or worse(maybe?) to the Afro-American slavery we so detest. However, the question still stands, Is the concept of Owning a person, Immoral in Gods eyes? If the answer is yes, I'd like to see your reasons why you conclude this. Just to let you know, I have formed no solid opinion on the matter, so I am a bit of a sponge for info at the moment.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

What an absurd misrepresentation you make!

In what way have I misrepresented the text? How can I interpret the text that I've quoted (say, the 2 Cor 10:4-5 bi) in such a way that it encourages free-thought and rational discourse, rather than shuts it down, or bends it to its own ends?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

In what way have I misrepresented the text? How can I interpret the text that I've quoted (say, the 2 Cor 10:4-5 bi) in such a way that it encourages free-thought and rational discourse, rather than shuts it down, or bends it to its own ends?

It neither discourages nor encourages! In context of some other writings of Pauls Like in Collosians 2, we would be warned about being decieved by mans 'wisdom' and the philosophies of 'wise' men. Nowhere is 'rational discourse' discouraged. You seem to have set up your own arguement But there is nothing to argue.

Ekancone

Does God believe that it is ok for someone to possess another person as their property, under certain circumstances?

Yes []

No []

No squirming, no dodging, no changing the context. Yes or no.

iUseVi

daithifleming wrote: »

Does God believe that it is ok for someone to possess another person as their property, under certain circumstances?

Yes []

No []

No squirming, no dodging, no changing the context. Yes or no.

oooh! I like this.

---waiting eagerly---

Puck

daithifleming wrote: »

Does God believe that it is ok for someone to possess another person as their property, under certain circumstances?

Yes []

No []

No squirming, no dodging, no changing the context. Yes or no.

Yes. I belong to Jesus. That's "ok" with Him and it's "ok" with me too.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Thats all well and good, but wasn't GOD the one who said that it is ok to take slaves? Correct me if im wrong, but, isn't HE the authority on whats right and wrong. And aren't YOU the ones who are meant to follow his every command?

The point is that it was tolerated/legislated for in the Mosaic Law, just as was divorce. Jesus made it clear that divorce was never 'good' in God's eyes, just tolerated until the time when He would come and set up a truly spiritual kingdom. It was an accommodation to sinful hearts, to make their civil governance possible. It seems God knew the limits rebel hearts would go in observing righteous living.

Slavery was permitted only for the unclean - the Gentiles- and even then it was restricted in its severity, just as divorce was.

In the NT God makes it clear that there are no unclean nations any more, and as slavery was inappropriate for the Israelites, so now it is for all men. But in NT times, Israel was no longer a State, having its own laws. Rome ruled, and slavery was its institution. The Christians had to live with what was, and express their love for their fellowman within that system. So no abuse of slaves, and the avoidance of slavery where possible.

Since Christians have been able to exercise civil power the responsibility has been on us to remove slavery - as Wilberforce and his colleagues did.

Ekancone

Right. But I thought that God's word is eternal, and is above the zeitgeist, no? What you are describing is done by applying disgusting human logic and reason. Only God knows the true way, and God says that it is ok to possess another human being under certain circumstances, didn't he? It is not our place to question, only to obey. So why do you not obey his eternal word?

I will ask the question again:

Does God believe that it is ok for someone to possess another person as their property, under certain circumstances?

Yes []

No []

No squirming, no dodging, no changing the context. Yes or no.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Please quote me the Bible passage where Jesus says that God tolerated slavery because of the hardness of man's heart?

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. That overthrows your argument was that since God permitted slavery, He must approve it.

But apart from that aspect, the enslavement of foreigners/buying of foreign slaves served to show the difference between Israel and the nations, the people of God and the ungodly. It served as a type and shadow, just as did the animal sacrifices and the 'touch not, taste not' rules.

Slavery in instances was a judicial measure God took against the sinning nations.

The ban on it for the Israelites was for the same reason white American's couldn't own other white American slaves.

No one would seriously say that because of that pre-civil war America was actually really anti-slavery.

Exactly. But since God has revealed that no nation is unclean, enforced slavery is unrighteous, and voluntary slavery a poor way of doing business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Remember, the nations were in rebellion against God and He was free to discipline them by slavery or death.

He was free to and he did

God encouraged and promoted the slavery of other nations.

And they deserved it in those circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed. And if they are in a position to abolish slavery, they are to do that too - as in fact Wilberforce and his fellow evangelicals did.

And I hope some day Christians will abolish their anti-women and anti-gay views as well ...

When Antichrist comes, many 'Christians' will abandon their faith entirely:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

JimiTime

daithifleming wrote: »

Does God believe that it is ok for someone to possess another person as their property, under certain circumstances?

Yes []

No []

No squirming, no dodging, no changing the context. Yes or no.

Did he? Based on my understanding of the old testament: Yes.

Does he now? Based on my understanding of the Old an New testament. I'm not sure. You say 'under certain circumstances'. I would have to see the circustances. Base on my understanding though, the actual priciple of 'owning' a person, I don't think there is a major objection. But I may be wrong. i'd like an open discussion on it, without any 'You approve of slavery' type language. I think Wolfsbane last post is a good explaination to a point.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Right. But I thought that God's word is eternal, and is above the zeitgeist, no? What you are describing is done by applying disgusting human logic and reason. Only God knows the true way, and God says that it is ok to possess another human being under certain circumstances, didn't he? It is not our place to question, only to obey. So why do you not obey his eternal word?

I will ask the question again:

Does God believe that it is ok for someone to possess another person as their property, under certain circumstances?

Yes []

No []

No squirming, no dodging, no changing the context. Yes or no.

I'm only showing you what God Himself says:
Divorce was permitted - yet God says He hates divorce, and Jesus said it was permitted because of the hardness of their hearts.

Slavery is a bit different, since it also had a judicial and typical element. That (enforced) slavery as such is wicked is shown by the ban on it for the Israelite. As a judicial measure it was acceptable, just as imprisonment is for us today.

Now to your poll:
You question is open to ambiquity, so I will give the most comprehensive answer and then explain it: Yes [x]. The certain circumstances were those judicial ones in the OT.

Ekancone

Thank you both for your honesty.

JimiTime

daithifleming wrote: »

Thank you both for your honesty.

Again, i hope thats what we get from most of the posters? we can be misinformed, wrong, stupid etc etc, but i would hope that most would want to be truthful. Putting aside pride etc. Maybe?

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

Did he? Based on my understanding of the old testament: Yes.

Does he now? Based on my understanding of the Old an New testament. I'm not sure. You say 'under certain circumstances'. I would have to see the circustances. Base on my understanding though, the actual priciple of 'owning' a person, I don't think there is a major objection. But I may be wrong. i'd like an open discussion on it, without any 'You approve of slavery' type language. I think Wolfsbane last post is a good explaination to a point.

Thanks for your thoughful posts, Jimi. I'm too struggling to express all that is involved in the slavery matter, for it is not a simple institution either in form or purpose.

I think the major objection to voluntary slavery lies not so much in the institution, but in the weakness of human nature in using it. Man is so prone to abuse his fellowman that giving him such power over another is likely to corrupt him. That's why the best of political systems incorporate checks and balances on the Executive - man can't be trusted.

Involuntary slavery remains a possible judicial measure, but is rightly rejected by most nations today because of the abuses it is liable to. Much safer economic means can be used - although not without their dangers too.

Enforced slavery is of course alive and well in dictatorships like China and some Islamic states, as a means of oppression. And in a lot of the poorer countries where the rich exploit the poor. Even in Europe we have our illegal sex and labour slaves, the governments apparently unwilling to root out the slavers.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for your thoughful posts, Jimi. I'm too struggling to express all that is involved in the slavery matter, for it is not a simple institution either in form or purpose.

absolutely. it occurred to me reading these boards, that maybe our quickness to say 'God doesn't approve of slavery', based on all that the word provokes may need to be assessed because, as you say, it may not be so cut and dry.

I think the major objection to voluntary slavery lies not so much in the institution, but in the weakness of human nature in using it. Man is so prone to abuse his fellowman that giving him such power over another is likely to corrupt him. That's why the best of political systems incorporate checks and balances on the Executive - man can't be trusted.

I think the idea of Voluntary slavery is not a concept we could understand in our (western) culture. Is that a good thing? I would obviously say yes. But we've obviously grown up in a culture, thankfully, that slavery is absent from.

Involuntary slavery remains a possible judicial measure, but is rightly rejected by most nations today because of the abuses it is liable to. Much safer economic means can be used - although not without their dangers too.

I suppose the chain gangs were slaves. So i would say i agree (maybe) with this form of slavery.

Enforced slavery is of course alive and well in dictatorships like China and some Islamic states, as a means of oppression. And in a lot of the poorer countries where the rich exploit the poor. Even in Europe we have our illegal sex and labour slaves, the governments apparently unwilling to root out the slavers.

And again, this shows the complexity of the scenario. This type of slavery is the one that i wish was completely eradicated. There can be many levels. its not such a simple topic IMO.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree with much of what you say there PDN. But if I may be Devils advocate for a moment. If I was to ask you: Is the concept of Owning a person, Immoral in Gods eyes? What would the answer be? Even if others don't, I certainly do draw a distinction between the slavery of biblical times and the afro-american slavery of recent history. I suppose the hebrews in Egypt were closer or worse(maybe?) to the Afro-American slavery we so detest. However, the question still stands, Is the concept of Owning a person, Immoral in Gods eyes? If the answer is yes, I'd like to see your reasons why you conclude this. Just to let you know, I have formed no solid opinion on the matter, so I am a bit of a sponge for info at the moment.

I will gladly answer your question, Jimi, as I prefer to ignore the demands of people who think a yes or no answer will provide any clarity. (Shades of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?")

I can see certain situations where the concept of owning a person is not in itself immoral.

For example, the Ulster Scots settlers who sold themselves as indentured servants in order to get passage across the Atlantic were, for the next 7 years, the property of their employers. This was similar to much of the slavery in the Old Testament. It was a freely made decision that enabled them to escape a harsh economic situation and to make a fresh start in the new world.

PoWs and convicts are, in some countries, forced to work rather than just sitting on their backsides at the taxpayers expense. Is that slavery? Is it necessarily immoral?

A soldier commits to a set term in the defence forces. For that that period he is, essentially, the property of the State. A form of slavery? Quite possibly. Immoral? I don't think so.

So, yes, I think there are certain situations where one person owning another can probably be morally justified.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

I will gladly answer your question, Jimi, as I prefer to ignore the demands of people who think a yes or no answer will provide any clarity. (Shades of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?")

I can see certain situations where the concept of owning a person is not in itself immoral.

For example, the Ulster Scots settlers who sold themselves as indentured servants in order to get passage across the Atlantic were, for the next 7 years, the property of their employers. This was similar to much of the slavery in the Old Testament. It was a freely made decision that enabled them to escape a harsh economic situation and to make a fresh start in the [new world.

PoWs and convicts are, in some countries, forced to work rather than just sitting on their backsides at the taxpayers expense. Is that slavery? Is it necessarily immoral?

A soldier commits to a set term in the defence forces. For that that period he is, essentially, the property of the State. A form of slavery? Quite possibly. Immoral? I don't think so.

So, yes, I think there are certain situations where one person owning another can probably be morally justified.

I think these examples are extremely dubious, especially due to the fact that most of these situations would not have occurred during the writing of the OT.

Of course you can find fringe cases that are not entirely morally despicable. (and well done for trying) But to say that the bible verses in the OT that other people have quoted only refer to fringe cases is, at best, wishful thinking.

PDN wrote:

(Shades of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?")

I my view this and slavery are pretty black and white. Either they are OK to do or they are not.

If I were to come out with something like: "it is OK to beat wives who are PoWs" or something similar, you would dismiss my argument out of hand. And rightly so. You are diluting the issue of slavery as much as possible. Making it a "gray area" where it really is not.

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

If I were to come out with something like: "it is OK to beat wives who are PoWs" or something similar, you would dismiss my argument out of hand. And rightly so. You are diluting the issue of slavery as much as possible. Making it a "gray area" where it really is not.

In all honesty, i think we've all been quite upfront about things. TBH, I think 'Slavery', 'is' a grey area. I think based on what has been written here, its quite clear its 'not' black and white. Its a shame that you draw such a hasty conclusion, when obviously other posters have been bold enough to discuss the topic openly. could you tell us how the topic has been 'diluted'?

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

In all honesty, i think we've all been quite upfront about things. TBH, I think 'Slavery', 'is' a grey area. I think based on what has been written here, its quite clear its 'not' black and white. Its a shame that you draw such a hasty conclusion, when obviously other posters have been bold enough to discuss the topic openly. could you tell us how the topic has been 'diluted'?

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?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I will gladly answer your question, Jimi, as I prefer to ignore the demands of people who think a yes or no answer will provide any clarity. (Shades of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?")

I can see certain situations where the concept of owning a person is not in itself immoral.

For example, the Ulster Scots settlers who sold themselves as indentured servants in order to get passage across the Atlantic were, for the next 7 years, the property of their employers. This was similar to much of the slavery in the Old Testament. It was a freely made decision that enabled them to escape a harsh economic situation and to make a fresh start in the new world.

PoWs and convicts are, in some countries, forced to work rather than just sitting on their backsides at the taxpayers expense. Is that slavery? Is it necessarily immoral?

A soldier commits to a set term in the defence forces. For that that period he is, essentially, the property of the State. A form of slavery? Quite possibly. Immoral? I don't think so.

So, yes, I think there are certain situations where one person owning another can probably be morally justified.

That is my view on it presently tbh. the soldier scenario was actually in my mind also. Obviously there will be those loving to brand such an opinion as 'Christians want to bring back slavery' or something, but i think the opinions shared here have been very detailed, and helpful to me anyway. Thanks guys.

Ekancone

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?

He! :eek:

iUseVi

daithifleming wrote: »

He! :eek:

Ooops my bad.