Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeGod is working in the societal structure created by man that existed in Biblical times. I think that’s an important point to consider and that it’s not irrelevant whether God gave those instructions to Biblical men or modern men. It’s also not irrelevant that what you refer to as “slaves” were more accurately indentured servants who could not pay off a debt and so became unpaid servants.
You said that, 'The fact man chose to have slaves and indentured servants can hardly be blamed on God.'
That much is true. However, we are still left with a biblical verse (attributed to God) that tells us, "...he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.'
Irrespective of whether God is spe ...[text shortened]... o ancient or modern man, are those really the words you want attributed to your righteous deity?
11 edits
Originally posted by @romans1009The fact of the matter is that there were two basic groups:
Slavery in the Old Testament was much different than how most people think of slavery.
In the Old Testament, slavery was basically indentured servitude - someone owed a debt he or she couldn’t pay and became an unpaid servant to satisfy the debt. It wasn’t at all like American slavery in the 1700s and 1800s.
1) Hebrews that were indentured servents
2) Non-Hebrews that were permanent slaves.
The following passage shows where God explicitly condoned the keeping of permanent slaves as "property"
Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You 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. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..
From what I gather, the keeping of permanent slaves was never abrogated in the Bible. Neither in the OT nor the NT.
Once again what you have been taught is not true.
What you subsequently posted is also largely not true:
Slaves in Biblical times were, to my understanding, more accurately indentured servants - people who owed debts they were unable to pay and so became unpaid servants to the people to whom they owed money. That is far different than slavery as most people think of it (such as existed in America in the 1700s and first half of the 1800s.)
That said, I think God was working within the existing social structure. God gave man free will and autonomy. The fact man chose to have slaves and indentured servants can hardly be blamed on God.
.
.
God is working in the societal structure created by man that existed in Biblical times. I think that’s an important point to consider and that it’s not irrelevant whether God gave those instructions to Biblical men or modern men. It’s also not irrelevant that what you refer to as “slaves” were more accurately indentured servants who could not pay off a debt and so became unpaid servants.
3 edits
Originally posted by @thinkofoneSo says ThinkOfOne, the Luke 4:18,19 thumper, on Jesus came in the to set the captives free?
The fact of the matter is that there were two basic groups:
1) Hebrews that were indentured servents
2) Non-Hebrews that were permanent slaves.
The following passage shows where God explicitly condoned the keeping of permanent slaves as "property"
Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them y ...[text shortened]... the keeping of permanent slaves was never abrogated in the Bible. Neither in the OT nor the NT.
How quickly you adjust your theology for the best skeptical outcome.
Originally posted by @sonshipNonsense.
So says ThinkOfOne, the [b]Luke 3 verse thumper on Jesus came in the to set the captives free?
How quickly you adjust your theology for the best skeptical outcome.[/b]
You mean Luke 4. In Luke 4 Jesus is speaking metaphorically about FREEing those who abide in His word from the slavery of committing sin (see John 8).
3 edits
Originally posted by @thinkofoneYou're teaching out of both sides of your mouth.
Nonsense.
You mean Luke 4. In Luke 4 Jesus is speaking metaphorically about FREEing those who abide in His word from the slavery of committing sin (see John 8).
Ie. On and on you go about freedom, release, setting free, etc. etc.
Then out of the other side of your mouth you find some handy rationale to the Bible standing with human slavery all the way - OT & NT.
Face it ToO. Whatever you find handy as a skeptical criticism against the Christian faith will do.
4 edits
Originally posted by @fmf
What about your thoughts on the OP?
"Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God"
Sometimes it is obedience.
Sometimes it is not.
Sometimes in the Bible there was disobedience to tyrants yet with an attitude still of respect and subjection.
The three Hebrew young men in the book of Daniel is a case in point. At what appeared to be the cost of their lives they disobeyed the tyrant. But not a hint of insubordination was in their tone. To the threat of their being burned alive they reply -
"If it be so our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the blazing furnace of fire, and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king.
But if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods nor worship the golden image that you have set up." (Daniel 3:17,18)
So it depends on the case, I think.
Armed rebellion seem at times definitely God's mind.
At other times He commanded the Jews to submit to the discipline of being conquered.
His will, His plan, His purpose was always the focus.
How did it fit into His plan?
That was the deciding factor.
Those contemplating this matter in the Bible should definitely take an evening to read the book of Daniel. Exodus, First and Second Kings, and some of the prophets should also be studied carefully.
Those wanting a quicky, snap answer can just follow whatever whim they wish to have about the matter.
3 edits
Originally posted by @sonshipOn and on you go about freedom, release, setting free, etc. etc.
You're teaching out of both sides of your mouth.
Ie. On and on you go about freedom, release, setting free, etc. etc.
Then out of the other side of your mouth you find some handy rationale to the Bible standing with human slavery all the way - OT & NT.
Face it ToO. Whatever you find handy as a skeptical criticism against the Christian faith will do.
Then out of the other side of your mouth you find some handy rationale to the Bible standing with human slavery all the way - OT & NT.
C'mon jaywill. It's really simple:
1) In Leviticus 25 God explicitly condoned the keeping of permanent slaves as "property". From what I gather, the keeping of permanent slaves was never abrogated in the Bible. Neither in the OT nor the NT.
2) In Luke 4 Jesus is speaking metaphorically about FREEing those who abide in His word from the slavery of committing sin (see John 8).
They are two separate issues. One is about God condoning humans enslaving other humans. The other is about freeing those who abide in His word from the slavery of committing sin.
How exactly is that speaking out both sides of my mouth? It's dishonest of you to depict the situation in that way.
That the Bible has God explicitly condoning the keeping of permanent slaves as "property" can and should be criticized.
That it was never abrogated in the Bible - neither in the OT nor the NT - can and should be criticized. Especially with Paul repeatedly encouraging slaves to accept their enslavement when he could have been speaking against it.
Originally posted by @fmfThe history recorded in the Bible are "real world" examples.
Any real world examples of when it is and when it's not?
1 edit
Originally posted by @thinkofoneHumans owning other humans is a fact of history.
[b]On and on you go about freedom, release, setting free, etc. etc.
Then out of the other side of your mouth you find some handy rationale to the Bible standing with human slavery all the way - OT & NT.
C'mon jaywill. It's really simple:
1) In Leviticus 25 God explicitly condoned the keeping of permanent slaves as "property". From what I gather ...[text shortened]... edly encouraging slaves to accept their enslavement when he could have been speaking against it.[/b]
The New York Yankees own its baseball players.
The Employer owns its employees.
The parents own their children.
The children own their parents.
And the Israelites own indentured servants.
Though Leviticus speaks of their owning "slaves" in this sense the ownership:
1.) Was not an abrogation of their [equal[/b] dignity and worth before God as their masters.
I think the oldest writing we know of on the subject of servant master equality before God in found in the book of Job. Find us an earlier reference to the equal status of dignity between the servant and the master.
Job 31:13-15
"If I have despised the cause of my servant or my maid when they contended with me, What then will I do when God rises up?
And when He visits me, what will I answer Him? And was it not One who fashioned us in the womb?
This was written before Leviticus by a worshipper of God.
Sure, he owned maids and servants.
But he knew of their equal dignity and entitlement to just treatment even as servants and maids.
Your next post can produce an older human writing expressing such awareness of divine concern for social justice in the matter of slave / master relationships.
2.) The divinely instituted RELEASE of servants on regular intervals - ie. "the year of Jubilee" made permanent ownership sanctioned against.
However, there could be those who voluntarily chose themselves to remain slaves in the Israelite society.
Paul repeatedly encouraging slaves to accept their enslavement when he could have been speaking against it
Paul lived and spoke of Christ's grace being so prevailing that it could empower men causing them to overcome in any political or social situation. That is not the same as the twisting critics wish to portray as the apostles encouraging social stratifications.
His messiage - "What situatation you find yourself in, under what ruler, in what social strata, Christ in you is prevailing and cause you to transcend as HE HIMSELF overcame and transcended.
And in the communities he labored to produce - local churches as practical expressions of the Body of Christ, he said there CANNOT be slave and free. Grace swallows up oppression, covetousness, indignity, injustice in the normal church life.
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There cannot be Jew and Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:27,28)
Yes some people came to the Gospel as slave owners.
And some people came to the Gospel as slaves.
And people came to Christ is many different kinds of circumstances. He was not a social activist or a social reformer. He was interested in people being taken over in their whole personalities by Jesus Christ.
His instruction to the believing masters in Colossians was to grant to their slaves what is "just and equal".
"Masters, grant to your slaves that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (Col. 4:1)
Produce some American Slave document saying that the slave master should grant to his slaves what is "just and equal" .
In Philemon, a short epistle dedicated to the problem of a run away slave, Paul appeals to the Christian slave master's conscience. No he doesn't threaten to take him to court. No, he doesn't sound like an abolitionist or a social activist.
He heaps coals of fire upon the master's conscience saying that the master owed his life to Paul, and he should treat the slave as IF it were Paul himself. He ministers Jesus Christ to the man's conscience.
"If he stole from you, charge it all to my account."
The run away slave had become a co-worker with Paul, a virtual assistant in his apostleship.
i am not finished writing here. But that is all the time I have at this moment.
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonshipAnd what about real-world examples involving Christians in the C20th and C21st - in our living memory - right up to the current world as we see it? When is or has rebellion against tyranny been obedience and when has it not been obedience - according to your understanding of the Bible?
Sometimes it is obedience.
Sometimes it is not.
FMF: Any real-world examples of when it is and when it's not?
Originally posted by @sonship
The history recorded in the Bible are "real world" examples.
Originally posted by @fmfIt is an empty statement unless we know what a tyrant is.
What do the religionists here think about this assertion by Benjamin Franklin?
As for the non-religionists here, what are the moral dimensions of "rebellion against tyrants"?
But it is generally true that we have a duty to oppose evil and do good.
However, we do know that Franklin would just be really Libertarian and cosnider some sensible British Monarch a tyrant.
Not cool. Not fun. Not interesting.