Jesus and the practice of Slavery

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

No matter how humanely you yourself would treat a slave, you would be giving a pass to the brutal ones. And if you died with slaves, they could be passed to monsters. So, nothing makes slavery correct, no matter where or when it is practiced.

People just don't like reading my posts. I recall that I said some forms of slavery were little different than modern employment. (That is the truth, BTW) So far as I know, there is no special word for that arrangement even though it is categorically different from such brutality as the American slave trade. Equating it with employment, while it is a stretch, seems a better categorization. After all, there are many employer/worker contracts which are very restrictive. I had a sales contract with one publication which prevented me from accepting similar work with any competing publication. It was a "if you screw with us, you don't work at all" arrangement.

But my purpose in the OP was to show that Jesus used the condition of slavery as an analogy to the relationship the believer has with God. So, a lot of this righteous indignation is superfluous.

1 Reply

Not indignation. Just don't like slavery getting a free pass.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I understand what you were getting at edgarblythe.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

It could be said

Lots of things "could be said". But many things that could be said are nonsense. And even among the things that could be said and make sense, lots are untrue.

neologist wrote:

that Adam and Eve were to be slaves of Jehovah when . . . God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28) To many, this may seem a form of slavery in the sense that they were told to be industrious.

Only to the "many" who don't bother looking up words in a dictionary. For example, if you look up the word "slave" in the American Heritage Dictionary, the two definitions that come closest to applying to Adam and Eve are the first two:

Quote:

1. One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude.
2. One who is subservient to or controlled by another: his boss's slave.

There is a high threshold of unfreedom in both these definitions. Adam and Eve meet neither. You are making stuff up.

Neologist wrote:

Then we read in chapter 3 of Genesis that Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command and obeyed the suggestion of Satan.

That is not what the Bible says. What we read about in chapter 3 of Genesis is an unnamed snake. That this snake is Satan isn't what the Bible says. At best it's your interpretation of what the Bible says. Again, you are making stuff up. And taken together, all the stuff you make up in this post consistently errs on the side of pretty-talking slavery. Shame on you.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Maybe he has a reason for doing what he's doing Thomas.

What is he doing? I don't know. Started this thread?

0 Replies

@neologist,

No, slavery was never like modern employment, no matter how much you whine about people not liking your posts. If i don't care for the terms of employment, i can seek other work. I can go somewhere else to seek employment, i can take a second job, i.e., i can "moonlight." No slave ever has those options. The plain and simple fact is that you are attempting to whitewash a brutal and inhumane institution.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The concept of slavery and "the faithful slave" from Matt is built into JW's worldview. Their governing body is the "slave " to the smallflock and that's central to JW's beliefs and especially their Eschatological views. They are convinced we are in the end times and that the KJV of the Bible is inerrant scripture. So, if theres a verse upon which to hng a position, its used.
You and Thomas are arguing against a wall of belief, not some simple issue of a definition of human rights.

Matt 24: 45-47

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I couldn't agree less. This is not like the thread in which Frank invited Christians to come in and be browbeaten on this issue. Neologist started this thread of his own accord. Neo is an intelligent man. He understands that this is a major moral flaw on the part of his boy Jeebus. He is attempting to rationalize it because he has embraced the faith, because he has "drunk the koolaid." However, i believe that, deep down inside, it sticks in his craw. While the Watchtower would certainly praise his orthodoxy, i think what we are seeing here is a slow motion train wreck. I think this is Neo making a pathetic attempt to get other christians to condone his point of view, because he knows it is indefensible. Whatever JW orthodoxy may require of him, this is a subject which flies in the face of the image of Jesus to which all christians subscribe. This is a doctrinal flaw that none of them can explain away.

I think that Neo's "wall of faith" has serious cracks in it, so he seeks some consensus from other christians to salve his conscience. In the case of most christian loonies, i would just laugh at him and go about my business. Neo's a different case--he knows better, he just won't admit it because the JW community has become so important to him. It's sad.

EDIT: I believe i am correct in stating that Neo was once shunned by the other JW holy rollers for a serious breach of orthodoxy. I see this as Neo doing some kind of perverse penance. As i say, i believe that deep down inside, Neo knows this is horseshit. I don't think he'll like it that i say this. It's possible that he'll get nasty with me.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Nothing helps make your point than a nice dose of denunciation of thse with whom you disagree. Id be more wanting to know from where he derives this view. Most Bibles hve the vesre but JW's make it part of their organization chart.
I googled up the "faithful slave" stuff that I recalled from my kid time. There are several versions based upon the specific Christian denomination. JW's place a lot more relevance to the verses than do the other groups. The verses have a lot more about how the "head slave" must take care of the underlings and feed them so that the boss will be happy with the head slave.
I look at that and say, "Ok, that's nice, but it doesn't reveal a damn thing about the very state of being a slave or whether its a condition of human rights.

In effect, you and Thoms and neo, are arguing post each other.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Nothing helps make your point than a nice dose of denunciation of thse with whom you disagree.

What's that **** about? Paranoid much? The only denunciation one could torture out of what i wrote is that i have pointed out that the issue of Jesus and slavery is something with which christians cannot deal philosophically, so they either dodge it or attempt to rationalize it. Keep your nasty remarks to yourself.

Neo is in a 'til death does him part relationship with the JWs. He cannot now abandon his faith without giving up everything--not just his "faith community," but his family as well. It's not going to happen, and i have no illusions that it will. But i do think he knows better, and that he is just playing the game as he is expected to play it. For all i know, the Watchtower expects the people among them who are internet "savvy" to spread this horse poop about online.

Whether or not you think Thomas and I are arguing past Neo, it's still worth while to point out that his reasoning flawed and that his justifications are based on flawed definitions--that he's rationalizing. We here are not the only ones who read such threads.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

What's that **** about? Paranoid much?

Its called an observation of your "debate style".Youve got all the finesses of a carjack.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I condemned no one, but you made that allegation because your "debate style" has less finesse than a carjack. Why don't you find someone else to rag at, silly, petty little man.

0 Replies

@Set & Farmer

As an impartial observer, I find you both fascinating, and respect you both for the fascinating knowledge you both bring to the table, Sets style is often a harder pill to swallow, but I'm not one to let the style spoil the substance.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

You are quite right. Slaves were, by definition, subject to the whims of their masters. and their masters were often cruel. One such cruel master was described by Jesus in Matthew, chapter 18. That he was also a slave seems more a commentary on human callousness than on the institution; however the point is still well taken.

But that some slaves were treated kindly seems to be the case in the instances I referenced in the OP. That one who is a slave does the bidding of another is the point I was trying to make. One may choose to become slave to another. In the case of man and God, a similar choice applies.

So allow me to re state the intent of my OP. Jesus used the institution of slavery as an example. So, the question of why he did not condemn the abuses of slavery may be relegated to other questions similar to "why did Jesus not teach us how to cure cancer?"

Not even close!

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Smileyrius wrote:
The concept of rights are very much a modern thing, I understand that many slaves were taken as a result of war, debt and social circumstance, but did not slaves in Israel for instance only work a 7 year stint in the bible with an option for extended service if they were happy to do so?
The Jews of Jesus' time were under Roman rule. I can't say for sure that Jewish law applied in all cases. It's the concept of servitude that I was trying to explore. The "faithful slave" seems to be one of willing submission in the absence of the master.

Actual slaves could have their families sold out to others...with no recourse.

A person was owned.

Stop being myopic and focusing on the work issue...it is the ownership that is the problem...and that remains a problem no matter how reasonable the work or how benevolent the owner!

1 Reply

Quote:

Maxdonca said: Jesus was certainly not as bad as the Apostle Paul

Paul said this mate so what's your beef?-
"..law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers.." (1 Tim 1:9)

0 Replies

Slavery was the disease of the ancient world, and particularly of the Roman Empire. What is significant here is something the religionists would not recognize on their own, and will likely deny. The failure of their boy Jesus to condemn slavery is evidence that his "vision" of the condition of humanity was not transcendent. He was unable to see a world substantially different from the one he inhabited.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Certainly it was a "disease" for the slaves and seen with our eyes today.

Whatever someone thinks about Jesus: he really didn't see the world differently than any other of his contemporary brethren.
If he had come from one of the Roman mines or quarries, perhaps he'd had a different view.
And if he had known only slave teachers for Greek in Rome - that would have given him a very different insight of slavery as well.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Stop being myopic and focusing on the work issue...it is the ownership that is the problem...and that remains a problem no matter how reasonable the work or how benevolent the owner!

Actually, ownership is the answer. Recall Mary's answer to the angel, recorded by Luke: “Look! Jehovah’s slave girl! May it happen to me according to your declaration.” (Luke 1:38) Those of us who serve God are willing slaves.

Jesus discussion about the time of the referred to both faithful and wicked slaves. You could believe he was speaking about individuals . . . But I don't.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

In effect, you and Thoms and neo, are arguing post each other.

How could that happen?

0 Replies

Jesus and the practice of Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know