posted
Fuck that: slavery is slavery. Any God that is cool with that sure aint gettin' my vote.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
So you'd be opposed to making criminals work while in prison? Or garnishing people's wages? 'Cause those are very similar concepts to what God allowed. You work for someone else until you've paid off your debt.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
and being in debt is not being someone's property.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
For varying definitions of being property. If you don't receive compensation which would otherwise be justly yours, and you legally have no choice in the matter, what would you call it?
As for prisoners, they only have the rights allowed them by the laws of their country, much like slaves in the Old Testament had certain rights. And don't we have all those prisoners making licence plates in Florida or some other television cliche? Or for perhaps a better example, people doing community service by order of a judge? There's still forced labor in this country, under certain very limited conditions, conditions not significantly different in principle from Biblical slavery. Slavery in this country was a completely different concept.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." -Leviticus 25:44-46
You're probably think ing of Hebrew slaves, who were to be released after six years of service. But that didn't apply to foreign slaves.
It seems the only "rights" slaves had were that their masters weren't allowed to kill them (unless the master beat the slave so badly that the slave died, but not for a day or two; that's okay), poke their eyes out, or knock their teeth out.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There I would ask whether it's better to be a slave in a position where you're exposed to the word of God, rather than a free man who isn't. Obviously if you assume the Bible to be true the answer's yes. Somewhat comparable to men like Jefferson buying slaves, I suppose.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Slavery of a foreign people due to their differing religon is good with the bible. Biiig Suprise. Every religion thinks that same line of "you're being exposed to the word of God" crap to justify denying another's basic human rights and oppressing them. It's exactly the kind of thing that the Pharoah might have said about the Hebrews. "It's for their own good that we make them slaves: to show them the greatnes of Osiris" It's a justification for oppresion. The passage only states that (as usual) bad things should'nt happpen to "our" kind of people but everybody else is fair game.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I wouldn't assume the Bible to be true, though. Assuming it to be a bunch of rules that people take as immutable, however, we can see that it condones a practice which the majority of people today would consider abhorrent.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"...to justify denying another's basic human rights and oppressing them..."
Ah, ah, ah, GOD-GIVEN rights! My GOD is better than your GOD, therefore you are an infidel, therefore you are mine to do with as I please! It be so written in the HOLY TEXT, which is the word of my GOD, therefore it is true! YOU, HEATHEN, ARE MY PROPERTY! SUCK IT DOWN!
"...it condones a practice which the majority of people today would consider abhorrent."
If the rules were immutable, then the majority of people would in fact approbate slavery.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
If the rules were immutable, then the majority of people would in fact approbate slavery. [/QB]
Not so! Religion breeds hipocracy: How many millions of gun owners attend church but would rather shoot a burglar than "turn the other cheek" and help him overcome his problems? Everyone picks and chooses what rules to abide by and what ones we ignore. "An eye for an eye" and "Turn the other cheek" are bound in the same book: That's why Christianity works so well: there's just no real way to go wrong depending on your personal interpetation. If it didint work this way, our armies could not go to war and our police could not really beat...er...protect us. It would be against their religon dontcha know? Religion is not a code of conduct but a salve against guilt. ...after all "It's God's will that we (insert any reason here)."
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
All Christians are supposed to listen to what their Church says about the interpretation of the Bible, rather than just find a convenient passage for whatever they want to do and use it as justification.
And I doubt that anywhere in the Bible justifies killing burglars.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I thought you were supposed to hand over your children to them for sexual pleasure, in hopes they went away?
The concept of "The Church" doesn't help much as long as there are sub-groups competing for the biggest capital T in the "The". Local parishes can still live by completely dissimilar rules even when within the general guidelines of a common church.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: The concept of "The Church" doesn't help much as long as there are sub-groups competing for the biggest capital T in the "The". Local parishes can still live by completely dissimilar rules even when within the general guidelines of a common church.
Timo Saloniemi
Well, as far as I (and 1.2 billion others) are concerned, The Church is the Roman Catholic Church.
Jesus appointed Peter to be Head of The Church, and the Catholic Church is still run by his successors. It doesn't really get more authoritative than that.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
It still boils down to who gets to call himself the Catholic Church locally. That is, who gets to decide what the Pope really said or wrote, and how it reflects on the sacral or secular lives of the local community. That's pretty much as tricky as deciding what Jesus or God really said or wrote.
Put short, if religion was something so simple it could be enforced equally on all practitioners, who'd be interested?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
