God condones both evil and slavery in the Bible. You are quoting Colossians 4:1 out of context. The verse is not stating that slave owners will be punished it is simply saying that everyone will have a master in heaven.Quote by: finder
God condones both evil and slavery in the Bible. You are quoting Colossians 4:1 out of context. The verse is not stating that slave owners will be punished it is simply saying that everyone will have a master in heaven.
If he doesn't condone slavery then can you please explain the following...
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
Lol. God does not condone slavery but he gives specific laws regarding slavery. You would think that if he really didn't condone slavery he would put as much effort into explaining to his disciples that slavery is bad as he did into explaining laws regarding slavery. After all if anyone can change a person's mind it is God.
Oh my goodness, how funny is it that Finder used the below scripture to support his view that slavery was not condoned by God:Lol. God does not condone slavery but he gives specific laws regarding slavery. You would think that if he really didn't condone slavery he would put as much effort into explaining to his disciples that slavery is bad as he did into explaining laws regarding slavery. After all if anyone can change a person's mind it is God.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I don't even think I need to explain why. LOL Wow.
Oh sorry, I just realized it was not Finder that listed that scripture. Oh well, it is still laughable.
he makes a point of telling people that homosexual acts are worthy of death, and wearing polyester is an abomination.Lol. God does not condone slavery but he gives specific laws regarding slavery. You would think that if he really didn't condone slavery he would put as much effort into explaining to his disciples that slavery is bad as he did into explaining laws regarding slavery. After all if anyone can change a person's mind it is God.
So, yeah, you are right.
god thinks internal bleeding is funny, i guess.
Also, i love how its vague like that. "a day or two". really? so if the slave dies 18 hours after the master beats him, is the master responsible? would that follow the day or the two days?
If the meaning of the word 'servant' in this scripture is the same as the word slave, then there would be no guarantee, assurance, or contractual obligation that the master would consistently will or decide to give "just and equal" things to the slave. That would be the wrong thing about slavery, not what the master bestows on the slave according to the master's whim.
He could ensure the slave's needs are met and allow the slave to have satisfactory recreation. He could do all kinds of nice things for the slave and that would be great.
But this does not qualify as being just and equal because if a slave took a notion he wanted to do something the slave owner did not wish to allow; an example could be getting married or wanting to move because the slave became angry with the owner, then no amount of giving nice things are going to make the slave happy and to feel like he is being treated justly and equally.
The slave's desire to have what he can't have could outweigh the benefits of what he can have. This is the true crime of slavery - denying humans freedom purely based on their status as being owned by another human.
I cannot emphasize enough how strongly I feel about this matter because some people don't seem to understand the basic reason why slavery is wrong under any circumstances.
I also am amazed that Questatement used the analogy of a boxer. Even if the boxer knows he is most likely going to get his ass kicked, he is still willing to take the risk in order to reap the rewards that come with winning. A slave has no guaranteed rewards for anything.
And if the boxer performs his job and suffers for it, but then is denied the rewards promised, how does he avoid the title slave from the point of view of his employer who never provided for the means to reward the boxer? I allude to pensioners who, upon retiring and would lay claim to their contracted rewards, are denied them in full. Illinois government pensioners in particular who thought they weren't slaves but, oops, looks like they were wrong. Are there categories of slavery that depend more on the outcomes of slave labor than on the outright buying and selling attribute of slavery?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
In a situation where someone was laboring for nothing but he did not know this at the time, this would be considered theft by fraud.
The difference is the theft by fraud victim at least knows there is a chance he will be stiffed and that he can abandon the labor if he decides not to risk this outcome, or if there is a contractual obligation and he can prove intent of fraud, he has the legal option of abandoning his labor. In other words, abandoning his labor is at least a possibility. Not so for a slave.
As for the pensioners you mentioned, they were never legally guaranteed they would receive the pension. They accepted it on good faith. A slave is never legally guaranteed anything, at least not in any instances I have heard about. Let me know if you know of something like that.
Sure is. When unable to work any longer, the promises of retirement benefits empty, then you call it theft by fraud. I say if at the end so it was at the beginning. The slave with no illusions about his situation and today's contractual employee's promised retirement benefits when they hit a certain age, are effectually in the same boat. Until the retirement benefits are paid in the daily wage, labor by slave or contracted labor is essentially the same. Should the delivery of retirement benefits be demanded in the daily wage instead of after a life of labor? A free man would demand it.
Can't abandon labor for those reasons if they are not in evidence until after it is no longer possible to labor.The difference is the theft by fraud victim at least knows there is a chance he will be stiffed and that he can abandon the labor if he decides not to risk this outcome, or if there is a contractual obligation and he can prove intent of fraud, he has the legal option of abandoning his labor. In other words, abandoning his labor is at least a possibility. Not so for a slave.
Future pensioners might consider demanding an addition on their paychecks while working that would be solely at their discretion to invest for their retirement rather than relying on an overly optimistic illusion of a continually advancing economy so typical of those pension plans investing in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac fantasizing a wet dream of continually rising housing prices. Not that I can't be a poor master of myself, but there is an inherently better chance to guard pension benefits myself. If they vanish then I have myself to blame. A free man accepts responsibility.
You've mentioned both slave and pensioner were never legally guaranteed a reward. A slave and pre-pensioner labored. Slave and pre-pensioner both realizing withholding of their labor would end reception of the basic necessities of life.As for the pensioners you mentioned, they were never legally guaranteed they would receive the pension. They accepted it on good faith. A slave is never legally guaranteed anything, at least not in any instances I have heard about. Let me know if you know of something like that.
Your theft and fraud descriptions apply when? Seems after the fact of labor being performed except for one thing. When both are retired would come the revealing of the actual state by which that labor was given. A slave expecting no benefits without labor and a contract worker denied what he was promised now that he can no longer work are in the same predicament. Which was the bigger fool for imagining other than the reality of their situation? Surely the fool is the pensioner whose labor was predicated on retirement benefits existence which was not his to manage and be responsible for. When come time to receive the promised benefits, when his labor is of little value from aging, it is too late to change employers. Then he finds he has bought a pig in a poke. Instead of finding the pig he had purchased in an unopened bag, when he got home to prepare and eat the pig, he found a cat.
The slave had no illusions but the pensioner relied on the illusion of future benefits as evidence of his freedom, only to find in the end game those illusions of future benefits were as binding as the chains on the slave.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
I would have to say that the pensioner does the work with a reasonable expectation of having that nestegg at the end of their careers. They enter the contract of labor for a paycheck and a retirement plan. Since the pensioner didnt get all of his consideration in the retirement package, he was compensated, just not to the magnitude that was agreed upon. It seems to me that that is a pretty clear case of theft, and the means was fraud, since their was an agreement in place beforehand. not being savvy to the conduct of the employer might be naive, but its not immoral or illegal. theft by fraud is, to me, both.
A slave has no contract, no reasonable expectation of a retirement plan or even any compensations whatsoever, and no real recourse to change the terms of his enslavement.
Dont get me wrong, I am not arguing for or against someone taking the responsibility of the security of their retirement, just the differences between the two situations.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks