Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops

ZNPaaneah · 03-02-2017, 03:52 PM

21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

In this thread I would like to open a discussion on the morality of the OT laws concerning Slavery. Some have claimed that today we have been enlightened and understand how immoral slavery is and hence have outlawed it. I would like to examine this claim of moral superiority for today's generation and also the claim of moral turpitude of the Bible.

OBW · 03-02-2017, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In this thread I would like to open a discussion on the morality of the OT laws concerning Slavery. Some have claimed that today we have been enlightened and understand how immoral slavery is and hence have outlawed it. I would like to examine this claim of moral superiority for today's generation and also the claim of moral turpitude of the Bible.

My general thoughts on what is recorded in the OT and NT concerning slaves is that the OT seemed to clearly consider slavery something that should be handled righteously and that it was only as permanent as the slave accepted.

In the NT, little is said except what would be reasonable to say concerning an employer/employee relationship.

And the notion that the Bible points toward no slavery is at least reasonably arguable.

As for comparing it to modern sweat shops, I see little importance in the comparison except to the extent that those who work there are compelled exclusively by the "employer" to work there and remain working there.

But there is much to be said about righteousness in the business world, and, in this specific discussion, in the world of employment. And it is hard to see sweat shops as anything but unrighteous — even if conditions are comparatively better than would have been experienced by people in some third-world country (or in the same third-world country if employed by locals rather than Americans, or more especially, Western Christians).

While I would support efforts to make sweat shop conditions go away in other parts of the world, I would strongly support efforts to awaken (and even shame) Christians concerning their part in maintaining such conditions.

But at the same time, I am not condemning a "local" Christian who has a business supplying labor for manufacturing for wealthy Western businesses as long as he/she is open and righteous concerning all aspects of the business and how he treats his workers. Those operating from within the poverty of their environment are not held to the standard that a Western business should be in attempting to use the available labor of that country. And those Western business should be willing to accept higher wages to allow for even better conditions for those workers. It is on those who have to be something other that simply capitalists concerning their business decisions. Because when people are starving, they may accept less than they should just because they fear having nothing instead.

ZNPaaneah · 03-02-2017, 06:37 PM

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Let's begin with this one since it is probably the strongest case to be made against the morality of the Bible. Clearly the Bible says that the slave is the property of the owner and that the owner can choose to beat the slave as long as they don't kill the person.

In Bangladesh workers tried to unionize. The owners of the factory locked the doors and had 30+ men beat them with sticks and chairs. Likewise in Cambodia the workers protested for a minimum wage of $160 per month. They were beaten and shot by police, some killed. For 2 days the capital was like a battleground. Why? Because Cambodia government is terrified these companies like H&M and Walmart will move the factories to some other country.

97% of the clothes in the US are made in these countries. They are called "low cost economies". So unless you know for a fact that your clothes are not made in a sweatshop you should reasonably and logically conclude that they are.

I have no problem if you condemn the Bible, but it is hypocritical, because what you are condemning you are also supporting. And worse.

What about the fire in Rana Plaza -- it killed 931. Were they punished? According to the Bible they should have been but these companies have a great "out". They sub contract the work, so they don't actually "own" these factories and as a result take no responsibility for them or their conditions.

10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

In this verse we can see the concept of a minimum wage. The owner is responsible to provide food, clothing and marital rights. Although this is just one type of slave it is still a principle that could be applied to others and is. Owners have a responsibility to provide a certain minimum, and if they don't the slave is free. That is the Bible's law but is not true today in Cambodia or Bangladesh.

ZNPaaneah · 03-03-2017, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

In the US corporations have a legal status of "personhood". Hence, under the US law it is reasonable to apply this OT law to corporations like H&M and Walmart. What they are doing is clearly a violation of this law. They are taking this "sub contractors" in Cambodia and Bangladesh as slaves and they play them one off the other. "This one can make the shirt for $5 so unless you can make it for $4 I will have to get rid of you". It was this threat of having "their food, clothing and marital rights" diminished that cause the managers to beat those who try to unionize and why those in Rana were forced to return to a building that was about to collapse.

On the internet you can find lots and lots of "holier than thou" condemnation of the Bible's laws on slavery and yet not one of these self righteous condemnations points out the hypocrisy of their own complicity.

97% of US clothes being made in low cost manufacturing countries does not mean that 97% of Americans buy it. No, what is much more reasonable is that 100% of Americans buy it except for a few rare and unique items. The only difference between the rich and poor in the US is that the rich are getting rich off of the sweatshops.

If you look at the discussion on sweatshops there is a lot of valid justification for the US to give these countries this business. In theory it is a practical way to help these countries work their way out of poverty. The problem is not with the theory, it is with the practice. The Bible doesn't condemn the theory, instead it merely regulates the practice so that it would be righteous and humane. These laws are just as relevant today for H&M, Walmart, Nike, The Gap, Disney and Sears as they were thousands of years ago.

Awareness justifies the beatings, killings, and abuses of sweatshops because the people have a "choice". Yet it is clear that Hebrews also chose to be slaves as well. This was a way to pay off debts. How is that any different from what we are doing today? Besides is the "immorality" whether we use the word "sweatshop" or "slave", or is the immorality from the killing and abuse? In Awareness stated opinion the real evil is that the Bible refers to people as "property". Apparently we are now much more enlightened today to do that?! Anyone who has had even a brief and cursory view of what is happening today with sweatshops knows that this is not about any intent to hurt people and in fact could even be motivated by the thought that this would be mutually beneficial. No, to the companies it is a very simple equation of dollars and cents. They are motivated 100% by profit. The idea that we are now more enlightened and do not view these people as "property" or "resource" for our companies to use is ridiculous and denied by all involved.

The general consensus by all is that there must be regulations adopted globally to protect the rights of these workers. These laws are the laws we can see in the OT that protect slaves. I think this also addresses OBW's support for a more righteous approach to global trade.

OBW · 03-03-2017, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the US corporations have a legal status of "personhood". Hence, under the US law it is reasonable to apply this OT law to corporations like H&M and Walmart. What they are doing is clearly a violation of this law. They are taking this "sub contractors" in Cambodia and Bangladesh as slaves . . . .

I admire your zeal in this. And if the goal is to raise the Christians up to shame business for refusing human decency in the name of capitalism, I am for it. We would all be better off if capitalism has moderated at least a little to accept that money does not measure all things of intrinsic value.

But U.S. corporations are not under the OT law, therefore going directly for them by trying to make a parallel is to cast pearls before swine. It takes a different argument to make that work.

For example, while economic sanctions may have hastened the end of apartheid in South Africa, the economic reality of a huge marketplace of customers that can't afford your goods would eventually start the changes.

I am not saying that we should never fight for what we believe is right. But once we start into that fight, we have to make the argument in terms that are meaningful to the ones we seek to sway. Much of the world will not care that the OT said anything about anything. So you will only be speaking to the choir, so to speak. As for making an impact on others, it may be sort of like the lines from that Neil Diamond song:

I am, I said
To no one there
And no one heard at all
Not even the chair

ZNPaaneah · 03-03-2017, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I admire your zeal in this. And if the goal is to raise the Christians up to shame business for refusing human decency in the name of capitalism, I am for it. We would all be better off if capitalism has moderated at least a little to accept that money does not measure all things of intrinsic value.

But U.S. corporations are not under the OT law, therefore going directly for them by trying to make a parallel is to cast pearls before swine. It takes a different argument to make that work.

For example, while economic sanctions may have hastened the end of apartheid in South Africa, the economic reality of a huge marketplace of customers that can't afford your goods would eventually start the changes.

I am not saying that we should never fight for what we believe is right. But once we start into that fight, we have to make the argument in terms that are meaningful to the ones we seek to sway. Much of the world will not care that the OT said anything about anything. So you will only be speaking to the choir, so to speak. As for making an impact on others, it may be sort of like the lines from that Neil Diamond song:

I am, I said
To no one there
And no one heard at all
Not even the chair

That is not my point.

This is a response to the argument that the Bible is an anachronistic book as evidenced by the OT laws concerning slavery. My point is that these laws apply to our current issue with sweatshops.

For example, many African nations have corporate tax rates of 35% or higher. At this rate they cannot attract any businesses to come in and take advantage of the cheap labor. Why? Because they are trying to pay off international debt.

Suppose instead the US made a deal -- every year we forgive 1/6th of the debt, in return you allow our companies to set up low wage manufacturing, like textiles, at very low tax rates. They can still have personal income tax on the workers, they get business, jobs and debt relief. If they are given the same protections as outlined in the Bible that would be a far more humane arrangement than we have currently.

It doesn't matter if the US adopts this or ever will, the point is that these laws are not anachronistic if they can be applied to current events.

Nor can it be argued that they are immoral without you also agreeing that the present situation is more immoral than the Biblical laws and all those condemning the Bible should first condemn themselves.

That is my point.

This is not trivial, it involves 40 million people and the entire 3rd world. If we do not respond in a way that is righteous we justify a terrorist response from those who are in these countries.

There have been 250,000 suicides by farmers in India due to predatory practices from Monsanto that are nothing short of a Frankenstein horror film. This is the biggest wave of suicides in human history. It isn't a big leap to think that these "suicides" could take the next step to become suicide bombers attacking Monsanto and other US offices. This is related to "sweatshops" as these are the farmers growing the cotton used in the clothes.

ZNPaaneah · 03-03-2017, 03:04 PM

Awareness: Okay, okay! I get it. The Bible equivocates on the meaning of slavery. And makes it hard to pin down.

The problem is that it never forbids it. If it had, the West, being of the Bible, wouldn't have participated in the slave trade. And even more important to me, my cradle religion wouldn't have had any Biblical ground to stand on in their support for slavery.

Then maybe the states wouldn't have been divided enough for a civil war to happen, and our first republican president wouldn't have killed the republic.

If only the Bible, Jesus, and followers thereafter, had forbidden slavery.

They didn't. ". . . the idea of human rights, that is, the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human, began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period."*

It took renaissance humanism, not the Bible, to recognize that slavery was/is wrong.

* Reference = "History of human rights" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights

OK, OK, I get it! Humanism has a higher moral standing than the Bible in your opinion.

The problem I have is what do you do today in Cambodia, Bangladesh and other "low cost manufacturing" countries to help these countries pay off national debt, gain foreign currency and raise the standard of living for their people?

OBW · 03-03-2017, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that these laws apply to our current issue with sweatshops.

But that is my point.

They don't apply to my current issue with sweatshops because I have nothing to do with sweatshops. While I could go to the trouble of discovering who is using sweatshops and buy from someone else, I otherwise am not involved.

And telling that the OT applies to it really doesn't change my mind on it. I am fully conversant with the idea that I should love my neighbor as myself and would not consider such activities to be in any way loving toward them. I surely wouldn't love myself by working in such conditions.

So what is the point of making it about OT laws? I'm already convinced. The ones you need to convince don't give a "R A" about what you think the OT says about it. To do anything about it, you need a different tactic.

Or do you just feel better when you can make things be somehow directly about the Bible rather than just about the unrighteousness of man in a general way? Do you need to have a directly biblical basis for moral outrage?

zeek · 03-03-2017, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
According to the Bible they could walk away. People were sold into slavery to pay off debts, once the debt was paid they could walk away. People were taken as slaves in war, but once a certain period was over they could walk away.

Read the Jungle, those conditions in the meat packing plants were worse than slavery for most.

Sweatshops pay a rate that will not allow the person to escape poverty so they are essentially a slave until they get sick, in which case they don't work, they don't get paid and they don't have benefits. Also, they then lose their job. Unlike a slave who might get medical care and who had "a job for life".

I am not playing loosey goosey with the definition, I am using your definition. What I am saying is that the reason we stopped using slave labor is because it is more expensive than sweatshops. You have to buy, feed, and care for a slave for life even though 20 years of that time might not be profitable work. With a sweatshop they just pay for those who can work. You don't raise them as children prior to when they can work and you don't care for them when they are elderly. There are no health benefits and no vacation time. The average slave had it much better than the average sweatshop worker does today.

My point was that you think it was some kind of moral enlightenment that did away with slavery. It was simple economics and greed.

So, in your assessment, the US abolished slavery based on economics and greed. Got it. What about you? Do you think slavery is OK? Yes or no.

ZNPaaneah · 03-03-2017, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

So, in your assessment, the US abolished slavery based on economics and greed. Got it. What about you? Do you think slavery is OK? Yes or no.

In my opinion we (in the US) have more slaves worldwide today than we did prior to the Civil war. By comparison we had about 4 million slaves in the US at the start of the Civil War. Most of the "US slaves" today live in these "low wage countries" where there are no regulations (euphemistically referred to as "free trade"). There are about 40 million of these workers with at least a fourth of them making textiles for the US. We also have about 11 million illegal immigrants that should be considered and we should also consider our prison population of 2 million in the US as well.

In the US we have over 2 million prisoners. Prison labor in China is notorious, and a very controversial subject for the US since "prison labor" is simply another term for slavery. But is it OK to have prisoners? The OT alternative was to sell a person to pay for their crime if they couldn't pay it. Depending on how much you were sold for it would have an impact on how many years you were a slave. Which would be better to sell criminals to pay for the crime or to warehouse them in prisons? We have an issue with the prison system and that is that we have privatized them and now we have financial interests and lobbyists whose interest is to "keep the prisons full". That is contrary to any social or human interest. However, if they were sold as slaves to individuals you wouldn't have a big corporation with lobbyists and a vested interest in people being in prison. Also, when a person gets out of prison the expression is that they have "paid their debt to society". Really? How is being locked up, living in a tax supported facility to the tune of about $50,000 a year called "paying your debt to society"? Now if a person caused $300,000 worth of damage and they were sold as a slave and worked for 6 years, paid that off and then went free, in that case I could understand the use of this term. I could also imagine criminals like Bernie Madoff and Martha Stewart being much more valuable working to pay their "debt" than for us to lock them up and pay for their room and board.

Consider the illegal immigrants. In the Bible foreign nationals can be taken as slaves. There are laws about how to treat them and if you mistreat them they go free and become citizens. Today many companies in the US employ illegal aliens specifically because they have no rights and can be abused. Meat packing industry is especially notorious for this along with farmers. The Bible's solution to the immigration problem should be considered for our situation. These 11 million illegal immigrants are not asking to go back to their country, rather they want the jobs, only with some regulations to protect them and give them some rights. We don't want to make them full citizens, but this could be a solution.

I also saw a documentary about sweatshops. In this film they interviewed this woman who worked in a textile factory in Bangladesh. There was a shot of her at home washing her daughter early in the morning. Her "home" was about five foot by six foot in size, it appeared to have an electric cooker that could heat a single pot, a concrete floor, and she was washing her daughter by dipping her hand into a glass and then wiping the wet hand on her daughters arms, legs and face. The entire time she is not complaining or even discussing her living situation. She never complains about how hard her job is or how many hours she works. Her only concern is for the employers to take a concern for the safety of the workers after the Rana incident in which so many were killed while being locked into a building everyone could see was about to collapse. This documentary made it clear that countries like Bangladesh and the people in them want these "low wage manufacturing" jobs, their only concern is that there be some regulations that protect their safety, that the companies like Walmart who are paying for the manufacturing take some responsibility, and that they are paid a minimum wage (that would only add a few pennies to the cost of the items they produce) and that the countries are protected from predatory practices of these multinationals. Laws and regulations that are all enumerated in principle in the Old Testament. Do I think this is OK? No way, I could never live like that woman and her daughter. But the reality is there are 40 million people living like that, and for them the solution is to drop a ladder into this pit where they can climb out. Unregulated slavery (our present sweatshops) is like a ladder that is broken so badly you are sure to fall prior to getting out. If you add the Biblical regulations we could afford these changes while at the same time giving these people a real (though extremely difficult) path out of their pit.

So then, slavery OK, yes or no? Depends on your context. I would hate to be a slave, I would also hate to be in prison, hate to be an illegal immigrant and hate to be growing up poor in Bangladesh. I don't think any of those things are "OK", but that doesn't change the fact that for tens of millions of people that is their reality. Would slavery regulated by the Old Testament laws be a better option for them? I think so.

Obviously you don't think so. Therefore I would like to hear what a humanist like yourself or Awareness feels is the best solution for these 40 million people? What is a better solution for the 11 million illegal immigrants who came in here illegally and don't want to return to their own country? Likewise, what should we do about the 2 million prisoners in our jails?

I am open to a discussion on the best solutions. What I am not open to is the hypocrisy and self righteous "holier than thou" condemnation of the Bible as though "we did away with slavery". As bad as sweatshops might be, what makes it worse is to pretend they are not slaves or that they are somehow better off than OT slavery, or that we are somehow morally superior to the OT laws while we go down to Walmart, or Nike, or Disney, or Apple, etc.

Surely you are aware that Nixon manufactured the "war on drugs" to discredit the political activists that were opposing the Vietnam war. These 2 million in prison are as much a civil rights issue and slavery issue as they are about crime.

Evangelical · 03-03-2017, 11:11 PM

Sweatshops - just another example of capitalism working at its best.

ZNPaaneah · 03-04-2017, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sweatshops - just another example of capitalism working at its best.

Just another example of viewing people as property, a resource to be used to make the owner (the corporation) a profit.

ZNPaaneah · 03-04-2017, 05:00 AM

"Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves." (Taken from evilbible.com)

I would add that the hypocrisy of being a whitewashed sepulchre full of dead men's bones saying "had we been in the days of Moses we wouldn't have done those things" also ranks up there for the most immoral things a person can do.

Today it is too easy to obtain slaves, so easy and "guilt free" that some like this self righteous holier than thou hypocrite on the internet may not even aware how much they have contributed to a slave economy. His clothes are made by slaves, his meat has been packed by slaves, his vegetables have been picked by slaves, his dental lab work may have been done by slaves in prison, federal call centers like the DMV could be manned by prison slaves, we even have prison slaves picking cotton, and of course his tax dollars support the prison system.

Yes, the Bible says how much you can beat a slave, which is better than our "free trade" which doesn't. What happens today is that the multinational corporations like Walmart will "subcontract" their work with local factories. In this way they claim "none of their factories have these practices". They have wonderful and safe regulations for all of "their" factories. So, legislators in our congress tried to enact a law saying that they could not sell items made in these unregulated factories (they can still subcontract but have to make sure that the factories they employ uphold the same standards they claim to have). Their was outrage! A loud cry from every corner of the corporate world -- "that would violate free trade". It is hypocrisy, a big sham, a whitewashed sepulchre.

Also, I would add that these countries all want these laws and regulations. They are desperate for these jobs and so what the corporations do is play them off of one another, always with the threat that if you can't provide this we'll go to Cambodia, or China, or Indonesia, etc. This is clearly a violation of OT law. In the OT you become a slave because of a debt or because you were a prisoner of war. If you violate the laws in the OT for taking care of slaves the slave goes free. The debt is forgiven or the foreigner gets citizenship.

Sex with female slaves -- this is also true in the Bible, but only refers to a man taking a woman as his own or his sons wife. There is no legalized pimping in the Bible which is what this implies. When we refer to the sex trade (legal in many countries but not in the US due to the very strong influence of Christians) we are talking about prostitution. The laws in the Bible are about "mail order brides" which is legal in the US. It is very clear the person is not permitted to traffic the woman he pays for and if he is displeased with her she goes free. Very similar to what would happen with a mail order Russian bride who is later divorced.

zeek · 03-04-2017, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, slavery OK, yes or no? Depends on your context. I would hate to be a slave, I would also hate to be in prison, hate to be an illegal immigrant and hate to be growing up poor in Bangladesh. I don't think any of those things are "OK", but that doesn't change the fact that for tens of millions of people that is their reality. Would slavery regulated by the Old Testament laws be a better option for them? I think so.

So to you allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals as property is justifiable in some "contexts". I strongly disagree. Slavery violates human dignity. I don't think there is any justification for it.

Quote:

Obviously you don't think so. [B]Therefore I would like to hear what a humanist like yourself or Awareness feels is the best solution for these 40 million people? What is a better solution for the 11 million illegal immigrants who came in here illegally and don't want to return to their own country? Likewise, what should we do about the 2 million prisoners in our jails?

The original topic was slavery in the Bible. It seems to me that you started a new thread to change the subject. You're going off on extraneous issues like sweat shops and now US prisons and immigration policy that aren't directly addressed in the Bible. The result is that we can argue endlessly based on speculation without any way to resolve those issues. Why not discuss what the Bible actually says about slavery instead?

Incidentally, I didn't say I was a humanist. Why do you think it's OK to label me that way?

awareness · 03-04-2017, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Awareness: Okay, okay! I get it. The Bible equivocates on the meaning of slavery. And makes it hard to pin down.

The problem is that it never forbids it. If it had, the West, being of the Bible, wouldn't have participated in the slave trade. And even more important to me, my cradle religion wouldn't have had any Biblical ground to stand on in their support for slavery.

Then maybe the states wouldn't have been divided enough for a civil war to happen, and our first republican president wouldn't have killed the republic.

If only the Bible, Jesus, and followers thereafter, had forbidden slavery.

They didn't. ". . . the idea of human rights, that is, the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human, began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period."*

It took renaissance humanism, not the Bible, to recognize that slavery was/is wrong.

* Reference = "History of human rights" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights

OK, OK, I get it! Humanism has a higher moral standing than the Bible in your opinion.

The problem I have is what do you do today in Cambodia, Bangladesh and other "low cost manufacturing" countries to help these countries pay off national debt, gain foreign currency and raise the standard of living for their people?

Quote:

10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Is it missed on everyone that this "wife" in the this verse, advising not to diminish marital rights, is nothing short of a sex slave? So the moral turpitude of the Bible allows for sex slaves? Okay. I guess even when the Bible is wrong it's right (where have I heard of that notion before?).

Look, I don't mean to pick on the Bible. Slavery goes back way before the Bible. Looking down just into recorded history, to the earliest writings, slavery looks to be hardwired into our primate nature.

While looking into this matter, whether the Bible propelled us out of slavery (the chattel ownership kind of slavery, not the sweatshop kind) or other humanistic principles guided us out of it, I came across the mention of slavery in the oldest known code -- found in digs from ancient Mesopotamia -- called The Code of Ur-Nammu (2,100 BCE).

Reading thru it it's pretty obvious that it had great influence on the Old Testament Hebrew writers. Coming out of Ur is all the evidence we need to draw that conclusion. Here are some on slavery :

4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.
17. If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him. (Fugitive Slave Act)
25. If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.

My point is not only that slavery has been around a long time, and was thought of as common and okay, but that is also why the Bible is so ambivalent about slavery.

If I read ZNP correctly, he seems to be saying that we today also have our kinds of slavery, and so need to follow the rules on slavery offered in the Bible.

Zeek asked ZNP outright if he thought slavery was wrong or right. Apparently he thinks it's right, but only if Bible directed.

My cousin, with his Ham/slaves laws of God, and the Southern Baptist's thought so too.

Again, if the Bible forbid slavery, or in other words, if God forbids slavery, maybe we wouldn't allow sweatshops today. Or did we make God in our own image, where slavery seems hardwired, and that's why the Bible is ambivalent about it?

OBW · 03-04-2017, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just another example of viewing people as property, a resource to be used to make the owner (the corporation) a profit.

Except for the view of people as property, all business use people as resources to make a profit. Whether it is the personal resources of the owner(s) or the workers.

Be careful that you don't inadvertently equivocate on the meaning of words like Karl Marx did. He declared that since in the terms of economics the labor of people is "exploited" (used) by business, the people are therefore "exploited" (illegitimately used, like slave labor) in all cases. And the masses who didn't know the difference rose up and started the socialist revolution.

There is much to say in a legitimate attack on sweat shops. But your underlying desire to turn things into more than they are is muddying your message. Quit trying to equate sweat shops to slavery. You don't need to do that to have a legitimate moral claim against them. And you will avoid putting your foot in your mouth when saying stupid things like slavery would be better than some of the current conditions in some places. You could be right. But even suggesting it as an option in moving to "better" should not be an option.

It should not be on the table to talk about in those terms.

I know I like to start by looking at things in theoretical terms, but sometimes you have to keep that to yourself and only talk about the real, here-and-now terms that are acceptable.

And slavery is not acceptable in current society except among criminals, which means it is not acceptable. Period. Amen. End of discussion.

You want to talk about sweatshops? Talk about sweatshops. Liken it to slavery if you want. But otherwise stick to sweatshops. The more time you spend trying to force slavery onto them as a universal fact, the weaker your arguments become. There surely are sweatshops in which the labor is truly, not just figuratively, enslaved. But if you end sweatshops, the slavery will go with it.

ZNPaaneah · 03-04-2017, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

So to you allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals as property is justifiable in some "contexts". I strongly disagree. Slavery violates human dignity. I don't think there is any justification for it.

The original topic was slavery in the Bible. It seems to me that you started a new thread to change the subject. You're going off on extraneous issues like sweat shops and now US prisons and immigration policy that aren't directly addressed in the Bible. The result is that we can argue endlessly based on speculation without any way to resolve those issues. Why not discuss what the Bible actually says about slavery instead?

Incidentally, I didn't say I was a humanist. Why do you think it's OK to label me that way?

I don't remember the precise conversations but several have argued that the Bible's laws concerning slavery are evidence that the Bible is anachronistic and immoral. I have given a similar quote from the internet to that extent.

My argument is that it is not anachronistic but applies very clearly to prison labor, illegal immigrant labor and sweatshop labor. Therefore this is not a "redirection" but a direct response.

My argument is also that although no one likes slavery it is hypocritical to talk about the barbaric immorality of the Bible because of slavery while at the same time buying clothes made in a sweatshop, eating food picked by illegal immigrants along with meat packed by illegal immigrants all while on the phone with a prison call center.

Awareness quoted a humanist quote and his opinion and your opinion on this matter appears to be a very close fit, hence I ascribed his quote supporting his position with you as well.

ZNPaaneah · 03-04-2017, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

If I read ZNP correctly, he seems to be saying that we today also have our kinds of slavery, and so need to follow the rules on slavery offered in the Bible.

Zeek asked ZNP outright if he thought slavery was wrong or right. Apparently he thinks it's right, but only if Bible directed.

My cousin, with his Ham/slaves laws of God, and the Southern Baptist's thought so too.

Again, if the Bible forbid slavery, or in other words, if God forbids slavery, maybe we wouldn't allow sweatshops today. Or did we make God in our own image, where slavery seems hardwired, and that's why the Bible is ambivalent about it?

My point is that we have slavery today except without the Biblical regulations. For example, if a man violates the laws the slave goes free. There are essentially two reasons a person becomes a slave, they are sold to pay a debt, in which case the debt is forgiven, or they are an illegal immigrant without the right of citizenship, in which case they go free as a citizen.

All of these multinational corporations use these sweatshops just like slaves, only cheaper. They don't take responsibility for their food or health care. They don't care for them as children or in old age. They only get paid if they can work, once they can't work they are discarded. This is a direct violation of the Bible.

I noticed you ignored my question to you. Yes, Zeek asked a question and I answered it, I would like an answer. You obviously do not agree with the Bible on slavery, so tell us all what would you do for those living in the "low wage manufacturing countries" and the 40 million working in these sweatshops? What would you do about the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country? What would you do about the 2 million prisoners?

Your position is hypocritical. You get cheap goods as a result of sweatshops which has raised the standard of living for everyone in the US. You eat food that has been picked and processed by illegal immigrants. Your federal government which you support with your tax dollars uses prison labor.

ZNPaaneah · 03-04-2017, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And slavery is not acceptable in current society except among criminals, which means it is not acceptable. Period. Amen. End of discussion.

You want to talk about sweatshops? Talk about sweatshops. Liken it to slavery if you want. But otherwise stick to sweatshops. The more time you spend trying to force slavery onto them as a universal fact, the weaker your arguments become. There surely are sweatshops in which the labor is truly, not just figuratively, enslaved. But if you end sweatshops, the slavery will go with it.

I am not equating sweatshops to slavery, what I am doing is saying that the slavery described in the Bible (not the worst and most abusive cases, but the slavery that follows the Biblical regulations) is better than sweatshops.

1. There is no care of these people. No responsibility is taken. That is a violation of the Biblical regulation.
2. If the company decides they have a better deal elsewhere they just dump them, which is a violation of the Biblical regulation.

These countries choose this path because they are in extreme poverty and debt. Yet when 900+ people are killed in a fire the debt is not forgiven. A violation of the Bible.

I am not arguing to end sweatshops. No one in these countries or in these factories wants that. What I am arguing is that we need to add the Biblical regulations so that this can truly be a way for these countries and people to climb up out of poverty.

awareness · 03-04-2017, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I noticed you ignored my question to you. Yes, Zeek asked a question and I answered it, I would like an answer. You obviously do not agree with the Bible on slavery, so tell us all what would you do for those living in the "low wage manufacturing countries" and the 40 million working in these sweatshops? What would you do about the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country? What would you do about the 2 million prisoners?

Your position is hypocritical. You get cheap goods as a result of sweatshops which has raised the standard of living for everyone in the US. You eat food that has been picked and processed by illegal immigrants. Your federal government which you support with your tax dollars uses prison labor.

Sorry I didn't answer your question. I think I missed it. I have trouble keeping up. Not with just the posts but with your convoluting of slavery with things that aren't slavery.

We have lots of illegal immigrants working here on our farms. Not long ago I talked to a farmer that hires them. Newsflash, they aren't slaves. Yes they are willing to work for wages that native Americans aren't willing to make. The answer is to lower the cost of living for us natives so that lower wages will meet our needs.

And sweatshops?

"Those focused on working conditions included Friedrich Engels, whose book The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 would inspire the Marxist movement named for his collaborator, Karl Marx. In the United Kingdom the Factory Act was revised six further times between 1844 and 1878 to help improve the condition of workers by limiting work hours and the use of child labor. The formation of the International Labour Organization in 1919 under the League of Nations and then the United Nations sought to address the plight of workers the world over. Concern over working conditions as described by muckraker journalists during the Progressive Era in the United States saw the passage of new workers rights laws and ultimately resulted in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, passed during the New Deal.[11]
On February 4, 1997 Mayor Ed Boyle of North Olmsted, in the U.S. state of Ohio, introduced the first piece of legislation prohibiting the government of purchasing, renting, or taking on consignment any and all goods made under sweatshop conditions and including in the definition those goods made by political prisoners and incarcerated criminals."
= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweats...tshop_movement

ZNPaaneah · 03-04-2017, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry I didn't answer your question. I think I missed it. I have trouble keeping up. Not with just the posts but with your convoluting of slavery with things that aren't slavery.

We have lots of illegal immigrants working here on our farms. Not long ago I talked to a farmer that hires them. Newsflash, they aren't slaves. Yes they are willing to work for wages that native Americans aren't willing to make. The answer is to lower the cost of living for us natives so that lower wages will meet our needs.

And sweatshops?

"Those focused on working conditions included Friedrich Engels, whose book The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 would inspire the Marxist movement named for his collaborator, Karl Marx. In the United Kingdom the Factory Act was revised six further times between 1844 and 1878 to help improve the condition of workers by limiting work hours and the use of child labor. The formation of the International Labour Organization in 1919 under the League of Nations and then the United Nations sought to address the plight of workers the world over. Concern over working conditions as described by muckraker journalists during the Progressive Era in the United States saw the passage of new workers rights laws and ultimately resulted in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, passed during the New Deal.[11]
On February 4, 1997 Mayor Ed Boyle of North Olmsted, in the U.S. state of Ohio, introduced the first piece of legislation prohibiting the government of purchasing, renting, or taking on consignment any and all goods made under sweatshop conditions and including in the definition those goods made by political prisoners and incarcerated criminals."
= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweats...tshop_movement

Your solution to the illegal immigrant situation is to "lower the US standard of living"? Well we now know why you aren't elected to any office. How much lower would our standard of living have to be before 40 million who are currently happy to be working in a sweatshop wouldn't want to come here illegally?

Second, we don't have 11 million illegal immigrants because we have fallen a little behind in our enforcement. They are here because they are brought here by businesses that want illegal aliens. The businesses know they are illegal. Why? Because they have no legal standing or status in the country, and therefore no rights. So they can't say anything, raise any issue, because if they do then we ship them back to their country. In the Bible these aliens were given a legal status as a slave that requires the owner to be responsible for their health and welfare. That is better than having no status and being called "illegal".

You are the one who is claiming "unrighteousness" and "immorality" yet are unable to see that the system in the Bible is more righteous, more moral, and doesn't require the Israelites to continue to "drop their living standard" every time some other corrupt dictatator drives his country into ruin.

As for sweatshops thanks for the history lesson, but the improvements in US regulations have taken place during the first half of the 20th century, this is now the 21st century and it is American businesses who are the ones abusing 40 million people in poor countries. You haven't explained what you would do for them today, this year.

You have a lot of chutzpa to ridicule the Bible's solutions when you have such flimsy and useless response to real and current problems. You want to talk righteousness and yet ignore the most blatant unrighteousness that you are responsible for. It is really easy to point fingers at others, why not look in the mirror. Oh yeah, I forgot, "it isn't slavery". No, they have developed something that is far worse than the slavery described in the Bible.

Evangelical · 03-04-2017, 11:44 PM

The first sweatshop was started by an employer called God in the factory called Earth:

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.

All of our human labor stems from this and I doubt that even the worst sweatshop in Asia today could compare to the difficulty Adam and Eve must have had, with no infrastructure, no help, no metals, no tools of any kind, no electricity, etc

There is actually nothing biblically wrong about keeping slaves. The Bible is more concerned with how slaves are treated than the practice of slavery itself. There is no command in the bible for "masters to release slaves immediately because slavery is wrong". The idea that to own a person (which is what slavery is) is wrong, is actually not found in the Bible. Ownership is a fundamental way that both capitalism and communism works. Ownership in both cases is in the sense of an employer and an employee, or the government. When we sign a job contract then our employer "owns" us for 8 hours a day or however long it may be. We have to answer to them for where we are if we are not at work on time. We have to ask them permission to take holidays or visit the doctor. So they are our owner. If we owe something to another than they are essentially our "owner" whether it is a mortgage debt, credit card debt , electricity bill etc.

The type of slavery the bible is concerned about is slavery to sin/mammon. The bible teaches we are all slaves - either to sin/mammon, or to Christ. As long as one sins no one can claim to be a "free man". Neither can a man who has devoted his life to Christ consider himself a free man.

awareness · 03-05-2017, 05:27 AM

Interesting post (left below). A little wild-eyed, but I've come to expect it.

So if I get you right you are saying that Biblical slavery is righteous.

H-a
--------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Your solution to the illegal immigrant situation is to "lower the US standard of living"? Well we now know why you aren't elected to any office. How much lower would our standard of living have to be before 40 million who are currently happy to be working in a sweatshop wouldn't want to come here illegally?

Second, we don't have 11 million illegal immigrants because we have fallen a little behind in our enforcement. They are here because they are brought here by businesses that want illegal aliens. The businesses know they are illegal. Why? Because they have no legal standing or status in the country, and therefore no rights. So they can't say anything, raise any issue, because if they do then we ship them back to their country. In the Bible these aliens were given a legal status as a slave that requires the owner to be responsible for their health and welfare. That is better than having no status and being called "illegal".

You are the one who is claiming "unrighteousness" and "immorality" yet are unable to see that the system in the Bible is more righteous, more moral, and doesn't require the Israelites to continue to "drop their living standard" every time some other corrupt dictatator drives his country into ruin.

As for sweatshops thanks for the history lesson, but the improvements in US regulations have taken place during the first half of the 20th century, this is now the 21st century and it is American businesses who are the ones abusing 40 million people in poor countries. You haven't explained what you would do for them today, this year.

You have a lot of chutzpa to ridicule the Bible's solutions when you have such flimsy and useless response to real and current problems. You want to talk righteousness and yet ignore the most blatant unrighteousness that you are responsible for. It is really easy to point fingers at others, why not look in the mirror. Oh yeah, I forgot, "it isn't slavery". No, they have developed something that is far worse than the slavery described in the Bible.

ZNPaaneah · 03-05-2017, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting post (left below). A little wild-eyed, but I've come to expect it.

So if I get you right you are saying that Biblical slavery is righteous.

H-a
--------------------------

What I am saying, have said, and have repeated several times, is that there are tens of millions of people living in abject poverty under a chaotic or corrupt government. For these people we have learned that loans are catastrophic, it just puts these countries into a very high level of debt so that the poorest countries wind up having the highest tax rates to attempt to pay off the debts.

Charitable contributions are also catastrophic. We send all the clothes that people toss out in the clothing bins to countries like Haiti and as a result it has completely destroyed their own textile industry. When we send food it does the same to their agriculture industry. The "donations" get seized by warlords and are used to build their little fiefdoms. What everyone who is fully involved in this issue, particularly those who live in these countries say is the solution is industry, like sweatshops.

The problem with these is that they are unregulated. Here are the regulations that would really turn this around:

1. If the regulations are violated the countries debt is forgiven.
2. Companies that use these sweatshops must be responsible to provide minimum standards of income for food, health, and safety. The word "minimum" is truly minimum by our standards and would be welcome by the vast majority of consumers of these cheap goods.
3. Companies have to have a contract with the country, they cannot just dump Cambodia because Indonesia has offered a better deal. The contract should be related to the countries debt. So it could be for 5 years, 10 years, whatever.
4. Illegal aliens who are working in the US need to be given a legal status that gives them rights and protects them without giving them citizenship. Meat packers and farmers can hire them under this status and if they violate their rights then then they are given citizenship. Their rights are based on points 2 & 3.
5. Mail order brides are legal as long as you are not "pimping" these women once they arrive. The person who marries this woman remains the husband or in the worst case scenario she can go free as a US citizen.

These 5 regulations are Biblical. They would be a vast improvement to the current situation. It would be more righteous, more moral and more human.

Yes, I do get wild eyed when people have the nerve to claim that these regulations are immoral and yet have no interest in 50+ million people suffering under our current "free trade" and "immigration" issues.

I also get wild eyed when people want to claim that the people 4,000 years ago were immoral while ignoring their own more heinous and more inhuman treatment of others.

Hypocrites and liars get me wild eyed.

Ohio · 03-05-2017, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I do get wild eyed when people have the nerve to claim that these regulations are immoral and yet have no interest in 50+ million people suffering under our current "free trade" and "immigration" issues.

I also get wild eyed when people want to claim that the people 4,000 years ago were immoral while ignoring their own more heinous and more inhuman treatment of others.

Hypocrites and liars get me wild eyed.

Welcome to the alt-world of progressive liberalism, where wrong is now right, immoral is now moral, the white man is now the root of all evil, and everything about the Bible is now suspect.

awareness · 03-05-2017, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The first sweatshop was started by an employer called God in the factory called Earth:

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.

All of our human labor stems from this and I doubt that even the worst sweatshop in Asia today could compare to the difficulty Adam and Eve must have had, with no infrastructure, no help, no metals, no tools of any kind, no electricity, etc

There is actually nothing biblically wrong about keeping slaves. The Bible is more concerned with how slaves are treated than the practice of slavery itself. There is no command in the bible for "masters to release slaves immediately because slavery is wrong". The idea that to own a person (which is what slavery is) is wrong, is actually not found in the Bible. Ownership is a fundamental way that both capitalism and communism works. Ownership in both cases is in the sense of an employer and an employee, or the government. When we sign a job contract then our employer "owns" us for 8 hours a day or however long it may be. We have to answer to them for where we are if we are not at work on time. We have to ask them permission to take holidays or visit the doctor. So they are our owner. If we owe something to another than they are essentially our "owner" whether it is a mortgage debt, credit card debt , electricity bill etc.

The type of slavery the bible is concerned about is slavery to sin/mammon. The bible teaches we are all slaves - either to sin/mammon, or to Christ. As long as one sins no one can claim to be a "free man". Neither can a man who has devoted his life to Christ consider himself a free man.

Bob Dylan - Gotta Serve Somebody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtIEYjNZgiU

awareness · 03-05-2017, 09:39 AM

Another interesting post (again left below).

I'm still not clear on your position. Are you now saying that if we follow Biblical regulations the result will be no more slavery?

Or are you saying slavery will still exist but Biblical slavery will be more humane?

Is slavery, of any kind, wrong or right (discounting Evangelicals claim that we are all slaves -- who bought me, and how much was paid - I know, I know, it's a setup -- the cross and all -- but y'all know what I mean. I was not put up on an auction block and sold to the highest bidder).

H-a
--------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What I am saying, have said, and have repeated several times, is that there are tens of millions of people living in abject poverty under a chaotic or corrupt government. For these people we have learned that loans are catastrophic, it just puts these countries into a very high level of debt so that the poorest countries wind up having the highest tax rates to attempt to pay off the debts.

Charitable contributions are also catastrophic. We send all the clothes that people toss out in the clothing bins to countries like Haiti and as a result it has completely destroyed their own textile industry. When we send food it does the same to their agriculture industry. The "donations" get seized by warlords and are used to build their little fiefdoms. What everyone who is fully involved in this issue, particularly those who live in these countries say is the solution is industry, like sweatshops.

The problem with these is that they are unregulated. Here are the regulations that would really turn this around:

1. If the regulations are violated the countries debt is forgiven.
2. Companies that use these sweatshops must be responsible to provide minimum standards of income for food, health, and safety. The word "minimum" is truly minimum by our standards and would be welcome by the vast majority of consumers of these cheap goods.
3. Companies have to have a contract with the country, they cannot just dump Cambodia because Indonesia has offered a better deal. The contract should be related to the countries debt. So it could be for 5 years, 10 years, whatever.
4. Illegal aliens who are working in the US need to be given a legal status that gives them rights and protects them without giving them citizenship. Meat packers and farmers can hire them under this status and if they violate their rights then then they are given citizenship. Their rights are based on points 2 & 3.
5. Mail order brides are legal as long as you are not "pimping" these women once they arrive. The person who marries this woman remains the husband or in the worst case scenario she can go free as a US citizen.

These 5 regulations are Biblical. They would be a vast improvement to the current situation. It would be more righteous, more moral and more human.

Yes, I do get wild eyed when people have the nerve to claim that these regulations are immoral and yet have no interest in 50+ million people suffering under our current "free trade" and "immigration" issues.

I also get wild eyed when people want to claim that the people 4,000 years ago were immoral while ignoring their own more heinous and more inhuman treatment of others.

Hypocrites and liars get me wild eyed.

ZNPaaneah · 03-05-2017, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Another interesting post (again left below).

I'm still not clear on your position. Are you now saying that if we follow Biblical regulations the result will be no more slavery?

Or are you saying slavery will still exist but Biblical slavery will be more humane?

Is slavery, of any kind, wrong or right (discounting Evangelicals claim that we are all slaves -- who bought me, and how much was paid - I know, I know, it's a setup -- the cross and all -- but y'all know what I mean. I was not put up on an auction block and sold to the highest bidder).

H-a
--------------------------

Human society as a whole has moved towards a higher standard of living. This is why the suggestion that we just need to decrease our standard of living doesn't make sense. As a teacher I am trying to improve the school experience. Better education = higher standard of living. Same thing with doctors, the proverbial "cure for cancer" is a higher standard of living. etc., etc., etc.

This has brought us to the internet which is huge advance for the developing world, which is why we now have so many call centers in India.

Google allows anyone, anywhere to have access to the World's library. Another huge step forward. Watson will take this to another level where you will be able to have access to advice from the best trained professionals in virtually all professions anywhere in the world. AI, 3d printers and robots are going to be another revolution.

But regardless the Lord said we would always have the poor with us. The issue to me is not "slavery" or not slavery. If you do that you allow spin doctors and other liars to create a new form of abusing the poor and calling it a "sweatshop" or "illegal alien".

Put yourself in the position of a climate refugee. You have lost everything. You have escaped from a horrible famine, plague and civil war. You have no job, no training, no capital, no assets, no home, no country, no rights, no status, nothing. If there were only one of you and 350 million of us this is not a tough question, we have many options on how we can help. But suppose there are 800 million of you (10% of the world's population) and only 350 million of us. Now what do we do? Do we impose a travel ban on the worst affected countries? Do we build a wall and deport all the illegal aliens? This to me is a real and pressing question that has to be addressed. If you were such a person which would you prefer -- I'll give you three options.

1. Sweatshop -- you get paid a dirt poor wage (way better than where you were yesterday) but there is no assurance you will have that job tomorrow. As a result the owners are very abusive. No care at all is given to your safety or health. If you are sick you are replaced. If there is a fire you all die because the doors and windows are locked. If you say anything you are beaten by both the owners and the local police. You have no rights, no status, no security, no safety and no care for your health.

2. Illegal alien -- virtually identical to sweatshop. The difference is that you live in the US, your kids go to public school and you have the hope that maybe life will be better for them. However, you do the jobs that no citizen would do because we expect a job to be safe and healthy. You cannot say anything otherwise the immigration police will pick you us and ship you out. So on one hand you have a more reasonable hope that life will be better for your kids, on the other hand you also have a more reasonable expectation that the day will come when you are shipped out of the country and your kids are left behind (or even shipped out with you).

3. Biblically regulated slave -- This can be to pay a debt or to live in the US. If it is to pay a debt it is a temporary situation -- perhaps 6 years before you can walk free. At that point you have a severance that can pay for your housing and you have a training in a career. The other option is that you live in the US like a migrant worker, but you have a status and rights. You are not illegal. Yes you work for dirt poor wages but you don't live under the fear that you could be deported at any time. Also, although your work is hard, menial and for minimum pay, it is safe and healthy. It has to comply with government regulations. Also, you can speak up if your rights are abused without fear of being deported.

zeek · 03-05-2017, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't remember the precise conversations but several have argued that the Bible's laws concerning slavery are evidence that the Bible is anachronistic and immoral. I have given a similar quote from the internet to that extent.

How could the Bible be anachronistic? An interpretation of it could be. Does the Bible maintain that slavery is moral or not. That would require consideration of every statement on slavery in the Bible. No one on Alt Views has undertaken that yet. Should we assume that the Bible is univocal on the issue? Why? Because that's what we were taught? Why must assume that what we were taught is true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My argument is that it is not anachronistic but applies very clearly to prison labor, illegal immigrant labor and sweatshop labor. Therefore this is not a "redirection" but a direct response.

Does the Bible address these issues explicitly? I don't think they had anything like a modern prison back then. Were there laws against immigration? Sweatshops were a product of the industrial revolution, so the Bible doesn't directly respond to them. Since you're arguing for relevance, the burden of demonstrating that these institutions or their analogues existed in Bible times is on you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My argument is also that although no one likes slavery it is hypocritical to talk about the barbaric immorality of the Bible because of slavery while at the same time buying clothes made in a sweatshop, eating food picked by illegal immigrants along with meat packed by illegal immigrants all while on the phone with a prison call center.

Stating that it is matter of liking slavery or not seems to imply that slavery is a question of taste not morality. You seem to be resisting a simple up or down vote on the morality of slavery. Are you taking a relativist position on it?

The charge of hypocrisy implicitly recognizes that slavery is wrong. If it's wrong and the Bible advocates it, that should be acknowledged.

There are passages in the Bible that seem to recognize that slavery is evil. For example, the whole story of the Israelites enslaved in Egypt implies that slavery is evil.

On the other hand, commands like Colossians 3:22 "You slaves must always obey your earthly masters..." imply at least acceptance of slavery as an institution. Contrary to the command for slaves to obey their masters God incited Israel to rebel against their Egyptian masters. So, taken as a whole, the Bible seems to be ambivalent on the subject of slavery.

ZNPaaneah · 03-05-2017, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Does the Bible address these issues explicitly? I don't think they had anything like a modern prison back then. Were there laws against immigration? Sweatshops were a product of the industrial revolution, so the Bible doesn't directly respond to them. Since you're arguing for relevance, the burden of demonstrating that these institutions or their analogues existed in Bible times is on you.

I am not arguing that there was global trade and sweatshops during the OT. What I am arguing is that the laws and principles in the Bible apply to how we can best deal with these issue. Col 2:3 -- "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him."

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Stating that it is matter of liking slavery or not seems to imply that slavery is a question of taste not morality. You seem to be resisting a simple up or down vote on the morality of slavery. Are you taking a relativist position on it?

I have already given you and Awareness a straight, up and down answer on this question. See posts 10,24, 28

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

The charge of hypocrisy implicitly recognizes that slavery is wrong. If it's wrong and the Bible advocates it, that should be acknowledged.

The Bible has laws regulating slavery. I gave an example of these on Post #1. Some slavery is wrong and the Bible does not advocate that. What the Bible advocates is a regulated slavery. What makes sweatshops and illegal immigrants wrong is that they are not regulated. It is the old see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

There are passages in the Bible that seem to recognize that slavery is evil. For example, the whole story of the Israelites enslaved in Egypt implies that slavery is evil.

When Pharaoh had the male children of the Israelite slaves killed he violated the regulations that Moses gave. Based on the OT laws at that time the Israelites should have been allowed to go out free with a peace offering. This is in fact what happened though it was not done willingly by Pharaoh. This is the problem with using a term like "slavery". There is the slavery practiced by ancient Egypt, the slavery practiced by the South, and the Biblically regulated slavery in the laws of Moses. This thread is not a historical review of the practice of slavery. It merely contrasts the OT laws and regulations concerning slavery with sweatshops, illegal immigrants and prison labor. Three topics that are current events and had a big impact on our last election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

On the other hand, commands like Colossians 3:22 "You slaves must always obey your earthly masters..." imply at least acceptance of slavery as an institution. Contrary to the command for slaves to obey their masters God incited Israel to rebel against their Egyptian masters. So, taken as a whole, the Bible seems to be ambivalent on the subject of slavery.

22 Servants, obey in all things them that are your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord: 23 whatsoever ye do, work heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men; 24 knowing that from the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the inheritance: ye serve the Lord Christ. 25 For he that doeth wrong shall receive again for the wrong that he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

I am quoting ASV because this is my standard text that I use, however I am not disputing that this verse does apply to "slavery". Instead I would like to point out that it applies to all of us. Every person, even the President of the United States is serving and has a master.

Yes the NT says to "obey in all things" but then goes into greater detail to explain what this means.

1. Fearing the Lord
2. Work unto the Lord
3. Ye serve the Lord Jesus Christ
4. He that does wrong shall receive again and there is no respect of persons.

Points 1, 2 and 3 would be impossible to do if your "master" was asking you to sin or commit vile, reprehensible acts. This makes it clear that you have a head covering and your master also has a head covering.

For example, as a teacher I serve the principal in our school. But I do this fearing the Lord, working unto the Lord and understanding that I serve the Lord Jesus Christ. Early in my career, prior to getting tenure it was made clear to me that I was to help our special Education students during state exams to get the answers right. This is clearly cheating. This was a practice being done in the entire school and although some teachers in the teacher's lounge chafed against the practices, it was pretty clear that these things were done universally. I won't bore you with the details unless you want to hear them. I could not do this, so I didn't. I want 100% of my students to pass these exams, but not by cheating, I want them to do it on their own and I have been working towards this end and see it as a service to the Lord.

During the exam in January, my first test they had me sit with one student, another teacher sit with a second student and a third person there "observing". The other teacher was there modeling the behavior they wanted me to imitate as much as anything (again I won't bore you with the details) but I did what a proctor of an exam is supposed to do and refused to point out the correct answers to the student (which the other teacher was doing). A month or two later they told me I had left a tutoring session early and yet put down the full amount of time on my card. As a result I was let go at the end of the semester. They gave me a video which seemed to support what they said, but then I was able to show from the video that the clock on the video was off by more than an hour and therefore they were incorrect. However, I didn't have tenure, so they didn't have to hear me, and they chose to ignore this.

So yes, you are supposed to obey the principal, but you are also supposed to obey the regulations of the Dept of Ed., and the laws of the US and ultimately the Lord Jesus.

The bible is very clear on both service to the Lord and righteousness.

Ohio · 03-05-2017, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Human society as a whole has moved towards a higher standard of living. This is why the suggestion that we just need to decrease our standard of living doesn't make sense. As a teacher I am trying to improve the school experience. Better education = higher standard of living. Same thing with doctors, the proverbial "cure for cancer" is a higher standard of living. etc., etc., etc.

How do you make a case that society has improved so-called living standards when the "living standards" for the unborn are totally nonexistent for the past half century. Are not the protests against "owning" slaves also relevant to abortion, which claims either the state (China's forced abortion policy) or the mother has total "ownership" over another human being. The stark hypocrisy of these positions scream from the graveless remains of these unborn "slaves" of society, which have zero protection under our law or international law.

ZNPaaneah · 03-05-2017, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do you make a case that society has improved so-called living standards when the "living standards" for the unborn are totally nonexistent for the past half century. Are not the protests against "owning" slaves also relevant to abortion, which claims either the state (China's forced abortion policy) or the mother has total "ownership" over another human being. The stark hypocrisy of these positions scream from the graveless remains of these unborn "slaves" of society, which have zero protection under our law or international law.

Abortion is not a new phenomenon. The reason God displaced the nations in the good land with the Israelites was because they practiced abortion.

We have had many improvements to our standard of living in the last 6,000 years yet we still lack a solution to our government.

awareness · 03-05-2017, 07:09 PM

Well that certainly was a response (again and again, left below). So I'll just take it that you believe, or think -- or something -- that, slavery is right, if it's based on the Bible.

I'll just say : I disagree.

So is slavery just a take it or leave it, to each his or her own, kind of thing? A moral relative? And God, also being a relativist, isn't really against it ; has no fixed morals? God is just fine with humans owning other humans, with some rules????

You do realize that you've made God look like some kind of racist, and unattractive, don't you?

I don't think I can love such a God ... not with an innocent conscience and heart. God may as well be witness Lee ... or better yet, Donald J. Trump.

And you should read "Camp of the Saints."

H-a
-----------------------------.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Human society as a whole has moved towards a higher standard of living. This is why the suggestion that we just need to decrease our standard of living doesn't make sense. As a teacher I am trying to improve the school experience. Better education = higher standard of living. Same thing with doctors, the proverbial "cure for cancer" is a higher standard of living. etc., etc., etc.

This has brought us to the internet which is huge advance for the developing world, which is why we now have so many call centers in India.

Google allows anyone, anywhere to have access to the World's library. Another huge step forward. Watson will take this to another level where you will be able to have access to advice from the best trained professionals in virtually all professions anywhere in the world. AI, 3d printers and robots are going to be another revolution.

But regardless the Lord said we would always have the poor with us. The issue to me is not "slavery" or not slavery. If you do that you allow spin doctors and other liars to create a new form of abusing the poor and calling it a "sweatshop" or "illegal alien".

Put yourself in the position of a climate refugee. You have lost everything. You have escaped from a horrible famine, plague and civil war. You have no job, no training, no capital, no assets, no home, no country, no rights, no status, nothing. If there were only one of you and 350 million of us this is not a tough question, we have many options on how we can help. But suppose there are 800 million of you (10% of the world's population) and only 350 million of us. Now what do we do? Do we impose a travel ban on the worst affected countries? Do we build a wall and deport all the illegal aliens? This to me is a real and pressing question that has to be addressed. If you were such a person which would you prefer -- I'll give you three options.

1. Sweatshop -- you get paid a dirt poor wage (way better than where you were yesterday) but there is no assurance you will have that job tomorrow. As a result the owners are very abusive. No care at all is given to your safety or health. If you are sick you are replaced. If there is a fire you all die because the doors and windows are locked. If you say anything you are beaten by both the owners and the local police. You have no rights, no status, no security, no safety and no care for your health.

2. Illegal alien -- virtually identical to sweatshop. The difference is that you live in the US, your kids go to public school and you have the hope that maybe life will be better for them. However, you do the jobs that no citizen would do because we expect a job to be safe and healthy. You cannot say anything otherwise the immigration police will pick you us and ship you out. So on one hand you have a more reasonable hope that life will be better for your kids, on the other hand you also have a more reasonable expectation that the day will come when you are shipped out of the country and your kids are left behind (or even shipped out with you).

3. Biblically regulated slave -- This can be to pay a debt or to live in the US. If it is to pay a debt it is a temporary situation -- perhaps 6 years before you can walk free. At that point you have a severance that can pay for your housing and you have a training in a career. The other option is that you live in the US like a migrant worker, but you have a status and rights. You are not illegal. Yes you work for dirt poor wages but you don't live under the fear that you could be deported at any time. Also, although your work is hard, menial and for minimum pay, it is safe and healthy. It has to comply with government regulations. Also, you can speak up if your rights are abused without fear of being deported.

awareness · 03-05-2017, 08:50 PM

Forget the Bible. The federal anti-slavery laws are better :

As Many as 60,000 Detained Immigrants May Have Engaged in Forced Labor for Private Prison Companies
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/...ees-claim-they

zeek · 03-06-2017, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not arguing that there was global trade and sweatshops during the OT. What I am arguing is that the laws and principles in the Bible apply to how we can best deal with these issue. Col 2:3 -- "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him."

As I said below, since none of these issues are actually addressed in the Bible, whether Biblical principles apply and if so how will always be matters of purely speculative opinion. We can discuss such ad infinitum but we will never be able to reach a definite conclusion It's the kind of stuff that preachers like to fill their sermons with. But, since it is unresolvable in real life, it's a waste of time.

Quote:

I have already given you and Awareness a straight, up and down answer on this question. See posts 10,24, 28.

In 10 you said "So then, slavery OK, yes or no? Depends on your context." In 24 you never even use the word "slavery" let alone make a straight up or down judgment on it. In 28 you state "The issue to me is not "slavery" or not slavery." So, no you haven't given a straight up or down answer to the question of slavery. Your answers, including starting this htread to conflate the issue with sweatshops etc. seem like an evasion tactic to me.

Quote:

The Bible has laws regulating slavery. I gave an example of these on Post #1. Some slavery is wrong and the Bible does not advocate that. What the Bible advocates is a regulated slavery. What makes sweatshops and illegal immigrants wrong is that they are not regulated. It is the old see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are advocating "Biblically regulated slavery." If so, you are in agreement with Dominion Theology, "a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on Christian understandings of biblical law."

Quote:

When Pharaoh had the male children of the Israelite slaves killed he violated the regulations that Moses gave.

Among the regulations Moses gave is the one whereby a man can sell his daughter to be a slave. [Exodus 21:7] So, you are OK with men selling their daughters. Do you have a daughter? Does she know you think it's OK to sell her because the Bible says so? If you don't have a daughter I suppose you think it's OK for other men to sell their daughters because that's" Biblical regulated slavery." I think that is barbaric and a denial of a daughter's human rights.

Quote:

Based on the OT laws at that time the Israelites should have been allowed to go out free with a peace offering. This is in fact what happened though it was not done willingly by Pharaoh. This is the problem with using a term like "slavery". There is the slavery practiced by ancient Egypt, the slavery practiced by the South, and the Biblically regulated slavery in the laws of Moses. This thread is not a historical review of the practice of slavery. It merely contrasts the OT laws and regulations concerning slavery with sweatshops, illegal immigrants and prison labor. Three topics that are current events and had a big impact on our last election.

"Biblically regulated slavery" might be better than unregulated slavery. That doesn't make it an acceptable standard. For example per Exodus 21:20 “Sometimes people beat their slaves. If the slave dies after being beaten, the killer must be punished. 21 But if the slave gets up after a few days, then the master will not be punished. That is because someone paid their money for the slave, and the slave belongs to them."
Since you find Biblically regulated slavery acceptable, it's OK with you if someone owns another person and beats him or her within an inch of their life. I disagree. That regulation is cruel and wrong.

Quote:

22 Servants, obey in all things them that are your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord: 23 whatsoever ye do, work heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men; 24 knowing that from the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the inheritance: ye serve the Lord Christ. 25 For he that doeth wrong shall receive again for the wrong that he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

I am quoting ASV because this is my standard text that I use, however I am not disputing that this verse does apply to "slavery". Instead I would like to point out that it applies to all of us. Every person, even the President of the United States is serving and has a master.

Serving "Christ" is a metaphor not actual slavery. It's strictly voluntary in America where we have religious freedom so it's not really slavery at all.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Well that certainly was a response (again and again, left below). So I'll just take it that you believe, or think -- or something -- that, slavery is right, if it's based on the Bible.

I'll just say : I disagree.

So is slavery just a take it or leave it, to each his or her own, kind of thing? A moral relative? And God, also being a relativist, isn't really against it ; has no fixed morals? God is just fine with humans owning other humans, with some rules????

You do realize that you've made God look like some kind of racist, and unattractive, don't you?

I don't think I can love such a God ... not with an innocent conscience and heart. God may as well be witness Lee ... or better yet, Donald J. Trump.

And you should read "Camp of the Saints."

H-a
-----------------------------.

Once again, the question is what do you do for someone stuck in a pit. Your solution is that we should all dig the ground we stand on so that we are closer to the person in the pit (lower our standard of living). In your solution the worst, most chaotic, most poorly governed countries decide our standard of living. So for you to tell me I have made God "unattractive", I'll take that as a compliment.

Once again I noticed that you pretend to respond to the post without answering the question. Would you choose choice #1, Choice #2 (the only two choices available today) or choice #3?

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Forget the Bible. The federal anti-slavery laws are better :

As Many as 60,000 Detained Immigrants May Have Engaged in Forced Labor for Private Prison Companies
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/...ees-claim-they

How is that not slavery?

A little background:

In the early 1990s, Rotchana Sussman worked sewing garments in her native Thailand. She remembers when the recruiters came, looking for workers who wanted to go to the United States.

“There were people who go around and look for people who work in the factory, who already know how to work professionally," Sussman said. "They introduced us to meet the smugglers. When you meet them they’re so nice, so friendly. We trusted them.”

Sussman was 24 then, a single mother struggling to raise two young children.

It sounded like a great offer: For about $4,800 dollars, the smugglers would get her to the United States, and set her up with a job. She could send money home to her children and her parents. Best of all, she wouldn’t have to pay the smuggling fee up front. They told her she could pay it off gradually.

But when she got to Southern California, she was taken to a compound of townhomes converted into sweatshops in El Monte.She and dozens of other Thai migrants sewed garments in the garages, and lived in cramped quarters upstairs. She wasn't allowed to leave for the next year and a half.

“We slept on the floor," Sussman recalls. "In my room, nine people slept. Downstairs was the kitchen and workplace. It was very filthy, with rats and cockroaches.

“You couldn’t open the doors and windows," she added "They boarded up the windows."

The garments they finished were put in bags and pushed outside through garage doors that were rigged to open only slightly, making it difficult to escape. The compound was fenced with razor wire.

Sussman was supposed to work off her smuggling fee, but as a virtual slave.

She and 71 other men and women were finally freed on August 2, 1995, when federal agents, state labor officials and local cops raided the compound, acting on a tip.

Two decades later, the case is considered a landmark that influenced immigration and labor policies.

“The El Monte case was a wake-up call for the nation to the pervasive problems of sweatshops in the U.S." said Kent Wong, director of the UCLA Labor Center.

The case led US officials to create a special visa for victims of human trafficking. Retailers that sold clothes made in the sweatshop were held liable in a civil lawsuit.

"Previously, many of the manufacturers and retailers tried to disallow any culpability for sweatshop conditions," Wong said. "As a result of the attention garnered by the El Monte slave case...new case law and legislation were developed to strengthen the culpability of manufacturers and retailers."

Los Angeles is still considered a hotbed for wage theft by state labor officials, in part because of its large informal economy and because many local industries rely on subcontractors - like the garment industry. This promises challenges for local officials as a new minimum wage law kicks in.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/07/31/...-resonates-20/

Is that what you and Zeek mean by Sweatshops are "voluntary" whereas slavery isn't?

Please explain how federal law prohibiting trafficking of slaves is better than the Bible's prohibition of this?

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

As I said below, since none of these issues are actually addressed in the Bible, whether Biblical principles apply and if so how will always be matters of purely speculative opinion. We can discuss such ad infinitum but we will never be able to reach a definite conclusion It's the kind of stuff that preachers like to fill their sermons with. But, since it is unresolvable in real life, it's a waste of time.

Disagree. This is the stuff that can guide and inform policy makers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

In 10 you said "So then, slavery OK, yes or no? Depends on your context." In 24 you never even use the word "slavery" let alone make a straight up or down judgment on it. In 28 you state "The issue to me is not "slavery" or not slavery." So, no you haven't given a straight up or down answer to the question of slavery. Your answers, including starting this htread to conflate the issue with sweatshops etc. seem like an evasion tactic to me.

Slavery -- Egyptian style -- No, that is evil. Southern Plantation style -- No, that is evil. Biblically regulated -- yes, that is a ladder that helps the most poor climb up out of poverty. It does not guilt those who are helping the poor, nor does it destroy dignity, self reliance, or independence like many well meaning people do with their "charity", nor does it promote warlords and fiefdoms like UN charity does. It responds in a positive way to people and countries that are less fortunate, and the people have a choice. In many cases they chose to "sell themselves into slavery" in order to pay a debt or improve the options for their family.

The reason it seems like an evasion tactic is because you lump all slavery together, Pharaoh killing the firstborn, Southerners teaching that slavers are an inferior race, etc. So if you would change the terminology to "Biblically regulated slavery" then we could all agree on what we are talking about and you would get a very plain, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are advocating "Biblically regulated slavery." If so, you are in agreement with Dominion Theology, "a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on Christian understandings of biblical law."

You are right to think that I do see Biblically regulated slavery as something that can and should be used in certain extreme cases of poverty. That said I am not in agreement with Dominion theology. I differ with them on "seeking to institute a nation governed by Christians". I have no thought, intention or goal to change the US constitution or Bill of rights. The Lord will institute Christian government in the millennial kingdom.

What I am advocating is the use of the Bible for wisdom and guidance in how to deal with these issues. For example, take the minimum wage issue. The solution was given to us in the gospels, it is so simple, and yet none of these politicians have ever even suggested it. You can dramatically improve the lives of minimum wage workers without raising the minimum wage if you just follow Jesus prescription.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Among the regulations Moses gave is the one whereby a man can sell his daughter to be a slave. [Exodus 21:7] So, you are OK with men selling their daughters. Do you have a daughter? Does she know you think it's OK to sell her because the Bible says so? If you don't have a daughter I suppose you think it's OK for other men to sell their daughters because that's" Biblical regulated slavery." I think that is barbaric and a denial of a daughter's human rights.

Answer my question in Post #28 and I'll answer this.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

"Biblically regulated slavery" might be better than unregulated slavery. That doesn't make it an acceptable standard. For example per Exodus 21:20 “Sometimes people beat their slaves. If the slave dies after being beaten, the killer must be punished. 21 But if the slave gets up after a few days, then the master will not be punished. That is because someone paid their money for the slave, and the slave belongs to them."
Since you find Biblically regulated slavery acceptable, it's OK with you if someone owns another person and beats him or her within an inch of their life. I disagree. That regulation is cruel and wrong.

You are aware that the people who work in sweatshops that make 97% of our clothes are beaten? They are beaten by their bosses and by the police. So I applaud your very high moral position on one condition, that you are not being hypocritical. Prove that you have not purchased anything made by sweatshop labor, eaten anything made by illegal immigrant labor, or availed yourself of prison labor working for the federal government. When you clean up your own life so that no one working for you is getting beat, then I'll take you seriously.

Definition of sweatshop — There are several different ways to define a sweatshop. According to the US Department of Labor, a sweatshop is any factory that violates more than one of the fundamental US labor laws, which include paying a minimum wage and keeping a time card, paying overtime, and paying on time. The Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE), the US garment workers union, says any factory that does not respect workers’ right to organize an independent union is a sweatshop. Global Exchange and other corporate accountability groups in the anti-sweatshop movement would add to this definition any factory that does not pay its workers a living wage—that is, a wage that can support the basic needs of a small family. (http://www.globalexchange.org/fairtrade/sweatfree/faq)

Beatings — Around the world, garment workers spend dozens upon dozens of hours a week at their sewing machines to make the clothes and shoes that eventually end up on retailers’ shelves. Verbal, physical and sexual abuse are common. Workplace injuries occur regularly. The wages are low. And when workers try to organize to defend their interests and assert their dignity, their efforts are invariably repressed. In country after country, the stories are hauntingly the same.

Workers at a plant in El Salvador, for example, say they are frequently required to work mandatory overtime as they sew jerseys for the National Basketball Association, according to the National Labor Committee, an anti-sweatshop group. That means they often put in 11-hour shifts, six days a week. If the workers at that factory refuse to work overtime, they lose a day’s pay. Workers making jeans in Mexico say that sometimes they are forced to work all night shifts, and are prevented from the leaving the factory by armed security guards.

“I spend all day on my feet, working with hot vapor that usually burns my skin, and by the end of the day my arms and shoulders are in pain,” a Mexican worker, Alvaro Saavedra Anzures, has told labor rights investigators. “We have to meet the quota of 1,000 pieces per day. That translates to more than a piece every minute. The quota is so high that we cannot even go to the bathroom or drink water or anything for the whole day.” (http://www.globalexchange.org/fairtrade/sweatfree/faq)

Sexual abuse is endemic. Most garment workers are women, the vast majority of them young women in their teens or twenties who have left their homes for the first time so that they can earn money to send back to their families.

According to Human Rights Watch, in the maquiladoras along the US-Mexico border, factory managers who want to weed out pregnant workers so they can avoid having to pay maternity benefits force women workers to prove they are menstruating, a demeaning procedure that is against Mexican laws. Mandatory pregnancy tests are also common in El Salvador, and women who test positive are fired, also in violation of that country’s laws.

Workplace injuries and exposure to toxic chemicals also pose a daily risk to apparel workers. To prevent workers from stealing the items they are producing, factories sometimes lock the plant’s doors and windows, creating a fire hazard. In many factories, workers are not given masks to put over their noses and mouths, exposing them to tiny cloth fibers that get stuck in the lungs or dangerous glues. (http://www.globalexchange.org/fairtrade/sweatfree/faq)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Serving "Christ" is a metaphor not actual slavery. It's strictly voluntary in America where we have religious freedom so it's not really slavery at all.

In the Bible people choose to sell themselves into slavery, it is voluntary. You are not allowed to buy a slave and then sell that slave to another person (Deut 21:14, 24:7). Your mistake which you keep making is to equate Biblically regulated slavery with Egyptian slavery and Southern plantation slavery. It is different in certain very key ways.

So then, if Biblical slavery is strictly voluntary does that mean it is not really slavery at all?

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

But that is my point.

They don't apply to my current issue with sweatshops because I have nothing to do with sweatshops. While I could go to the trouble of discovering who is using sweatshops and buy from someone else, I otherwise am not involved.

And telling that the OT applies to it really doesn't change my mind on it. I am fully conversant with the idea that I should love my neighbor as myself and would not consider such activities to be in any way loving toward them. I surely wouldn't love myself by working in such conditions.

So what is the point of making it about OT laws? I'm already convinced. The ones you need to convince don't give a "R A" about what you think the OT says about it. To do anything about it, you need a different tactic.

Or do you just feel better when you can make things be somehow directly about the Bible rather than just about the unrighteousness of man in a general way? Do you need to have a directly biblical basis for moral outrage?

There are numerous approaches to what to do about these destroyed economies. You can build a wall. You can have a travel ban. You can send in the UN to deliver food. You can give them our old clothes. All of these approaches are reasonable and logical ways to approach the issue, but they are all catastrophic to the local economy and do not help.

You can loan the country money, which we have done, but that also is catastrophic and doesn't work.

Micro loans can work if the country is not too far gone because what they are really doing is cutting out the middle men, the graft, the corruption, and they are encouraging the people to work.

But "low wage manufacturing" jobs are far and away the best option for both the 1st world economy and the "low wage" countries. However, only if it is regulated. What regulations do we need? They are all enumerated in the Bible. 1. Work is voluntary. No trafficking of slaves, no profiting by selling people. 2. This is contractual -- perhaps 6 years to pay off a debt. 3. Slaves have a legal status, legal rights, they can seek redress in court if those rights are violated. 4. There needs to be a basic minimum for room, board, health and welfare. 5. Conditions have to be safe.

Now I don't care if you embrace this because you are a Jew, Muslim, Christian -- or if you are a humanitarian, etc. I also don't think the corporations care either, as long as it is a level playing field. If Walmart doesn't have to abide by these rules then it isn't fair for any other company either.

zeek · 03-06-2017, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is that what you and Zeek mean by Sweatshops are "voluntary" whereas slavery isn't?

I don't recall ever saying sweatshops were voluntary. Where did you get that idea?

zeek · 03-06-2017, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Answer my question in Post #28 and I'll answer this.

I don't need to play your little tit- for- tat game. You have made it quite clear that you approve of "Biblically regulated slavery" which includes selling daughters and beating slaves until they can't get up for a few days. How could you possibly be selective about these regulations when they are sanctioned by the Bible which, as a self-professed fundamentalist, you must consider to be absolutely inerrant?

awareness · 03-06-2017, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't need to play you're little tit- for- tat game. You have made it quite clear that you approve of "Biblically regulated slavery" which includes selling daughters and beating slaves until they can't get up for a few days. How could you possibly be selective about these regulations when they are sanctioned by the Bible which, as a self-professed fundamentalist, you consider to be absolutely inerrant?

Thy kingdom come ... so that I can beat slaves and buy daughters.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't recall ever saying sweatshops were voluntary. Where did you get that idea?

I guess the reason I am confused on your position is that you have not stated it. I have asked numerous questions of you, as many as you have asked of me and yet you don't answer them. I guess that is the source of the confusion.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 12:00 PM

So let's sum up a little here.

Slavery is not voluntary

One major issue raised with Slavery is that it is not voluntary, people are "sold into slavery" against their will. This took place in many ancient and modern civilizations including the United States as recently as 1990 (that we have posted references to on this thread) but no doubt there are cases taking place as well today.

Some assume that since the Bible has laws regulating slavery that this includes the ability to sell people. It doesn't. The Bible specifically prohibits the sale of people. You can sell yourself into slavery to pay a debt, that is voluntary. What the Bible refers to as "slavery" is voluntary.

Beatings

A second major issue raised with Slavery is the unrighteous treatment of slaves including beating and even killing them. This was recorded in Ancient Egypt, in Southern plantations and in modern times. We have recently had people killed who were locked up, against their will, working in Sweatshops in Bangladesh, Cambodia and other countries. They are killed when they protest by the police. They are locked in rooms and beaten by the managers when they try to get a minimum wage.

The Bible doesn't prohibit beating, but it does prohibit killing. 900+ people in Bangladesh were killed because they were locked in the factory (to prevent anyone from stealing anything) during a fire. According to the Biblical regulation Bangladesh's debt should have been forgiven as a result of this fire, but it wasn't.

It is certainly a worthy concern about Bible sanctioned beatings, but in order to have a credible position one would have to wash their own hands first. 97% of the clothes in the US are made in sweatshops where people are routinely beaten. Many prisoners are used for various federal labor, and they also are beaten. Illegal immigrants pick our food and package our meat and they are beaten.

Sexual Abuse

This is epidemic in sweatshops on many different levels. It is easy enough to read about, so we don't need to describe this in graphic detail here.

The behavior that is common place in slavery in many ancient societies, Southern plantations, sweatshops, and the sex trade were illegal in the Biblically regulated slavery. Sexual abuse was a crime and the result would be that the woman would go free. If she was sold to pay a debt, the debt would be forgiven.

Women sold as wives

There are also regulations about women sold to be wives. These men are prohibited from selling them to other men, so pimping is not allowed. This is not that different from ancient practices concerning giving gifts for a wife (see Jacob and Isaac). This is still practiced today, even in the US with the practice of mail order brides.

Why no answer to the question in Post #28?

So far those who are making the biggest objection to the OT laws concerning slavery, Awareness and Zeek have yet to answer a very simple and straightforward question put forward in Post #28. Nor have they given a better solution on how to help the 800+ million people worldwide in desperate poverty. Nor have they disputed that sweatshops today are far more unrighteous than the Biblically regulated slavery of the OT. Nor have they disputed the claim that the Biblically regulated slavery of the OT is the solution that most closely resembles what those in these poor countries are advocating as the best solution to help them. These regulations do not require the developed nations to "lower their standard of living" which is what Awareness advocates. These solutions are not opposed by the vast majority of consumers when they respond to polls on this issue. These regulations are not contrary to any regulations that the large multinationals already embrace. The real problem is that they "subcontract" out these sweatshops so that they are not accountable for their sins. (A sweatshop is defined as any manufacturing practice that violates 2 or more US or UN regulations on factories).

Although both Awareness and Zeek have been asked repeatedly to respond to the question in Post #28 they have avoided it saying they don't want to play "tit for tat" or some other similar dodge.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Among the regulations Moses gave is the one whereby a man can sell his daughter to be a slave. [Exodus 21:7] So, you are OK with men selling their daughters. Do you have a daughter? Does she know you think it's OK to sell her because the Bible says so? If you don't have a daughter I suppose you think it's OK for other men to sell their daughters because that's" Biblical regulated slavery." I think that is barbaric and a denial of a daughter's human rights.

You are mistaken.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three things unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.

This regulation is on the one buying the girl, not the one selling her. It doesn't say that it is "OK" or "righteous" to sell her, it makes no judgement on that. What it does do is regulate the person buying her.

Now to my recollection there is no mention of this taking place in the OT (though there are references to female servants who might have been purchased). So this is not portrayed as a common practice. But it is a matter of righteousness. Is it OK to buy a girl, that is the real question. I am not an expert on Jewish history by any stretch but I do know of at least one example in Jewish history of a slave owner of Jewish slaves including girls who was considered righteous according to Jewish law. Not only so, it was his purchase of these slaves that is considered his ultimate righteousness. He bought 1,000 Jews from the Nazis. Oskar Schindler.

According to Zeek it was barbaric and a denial of her human rights, I guess you would have had all 1,000 left to die in the concentration camp?

awareness · 03-06-2017, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is that what you and Zeek mean by Sweatshops are "voluntary" whereas slavery isn't?

Please explain how federal law prohibiting trafficking of slaves is better than the Bible's prohibition of this?

Your Thai story, according federal law, is a crime. And unlike your Bible, I disagree with all forms of slavery. We, the royal we, are evolving. America has anti-slavery laws. The west, thanks to the renaissance, is leading the way. But other of the royal we haven't caught up yet. We'll get there bro ZNP, but no thanks to the Bible ... that you have clearly pointed out is pro-slavery (tho divinely regulated -- get that : divine human slavery!!!). Get that bro ZNP, divine ordained human slavery! That's what you are saying. Get that bro ZNP!!! Get that!!! Get that!!!

Slavery of any form is wrong. I don't care if God is the dictator of it. A God that institutes human slavery -- in His mind, or in His holy writ -- is not right in the head. Maybe He'll catch on, AND IS. He's just not evolved enough yet (or wasn't 4000 years ago). He'll get there bro ZNP. Let's hope. Give Him a chance. Stop hanging on to ancient out of date writings. You're acting like G.H. Pember. Or better yet, Witness Lee ... with your wild-eyed views of Biblically ordained slavery.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Your Thai story, according federal law, is a crime. And unlike your Bible, I disagree with all forms of slavery. We, the royal we, are evolving. America has anti-slavery laws. The west, thanks to the renaissance, is leading the way. But other of the royal we haven't caught up yet. We'll get there bro ZNP, but no thanks to the Bible ... that you have clearly pointed out is pro-slavery (tho divinely regulated -- get that : divine human slavery!!!). Get that bro ZNP, divine ordained human slavery! That's what you are saying. Get that bro ZNP!!! Get that!!! Get that!!!

Slavery of any form is wrong. I don't care if God is the dictator of it. A God that institutes human slavery -- in His mind, or in His holy writ -- is not right in the head. Maybe He'll catch on, AND IS. He's just not evolved enough yet (or wasn't 4000 years ago). He'll get there bro ZNP. Let's hope. Give Him a chance. Stop hanging on to ancient out of date writings. You're acting like G.H. Pember. Or better yet, Witness Lee ... with your wild-eyed views of Biblically ordained slavery.

How was Oskar Schindler buying 1,000 Jews from the Nazis wrong?

zeek · 03-06-2017, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are mistaken.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three things unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.

This regulation is on the one buying the girl, not the one selling her. It doesn't say that it is "OK" or "righteous" to sell her, it makes no judgement on that. What it does do is regulate the person buying her.

Now to my recollection there is no mention of this taking place in the OT (though there are references to female servants who might have been purchased). So this is not portrayed as a common practice. But it is a matter of righteousness. Is it OK to buy a girl, that is the real question. I am not an expert on Jewish history by any stretch but I do know of at least one example in Jewish history of a slave owner of Jewish slaves including girls who was considered righteous according to Jewish law. Not only so, it was his purchase of these slaves that is considered his ultimate righteousness. He bought 1,000 Jews from the Nazis. Oskar Schindler.

According to Zeek it was barbaric and a denial of her human rights, I guess you would have had all 1,000 left to die in the concentration camp?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are mistaken.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three things unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.

This regulation is on the one buying the girl, not the one selling her. It doesn't say that it is "OK" or "righteous" to sell her, it makes no judgement on that. What it does do is regulate the person buying her.

Now to my recollection there is no mention of this taking place in the OT (though there are references to female servants who might have been purchased). So this is not portrayed as a common practice. But it is a matter of righteousness. Is it OK to buy a girl, that is the real question. I am not an expert on Jewish history by any stretch but I do know of at least one example in Jewish history of a slave owner of Jewish slaves including girls who was considered righteous according to Jewish law. Not only so, it was his purchase of these slaves that is considered his ultimate righteousness. He bought 1,000 Jews from the Nazis. Oskar Schindler.

According to Zeek it was barbaric and a denial of her human rights, I guess you would have had all 1,000 left to die in the concentration camp?

No. Schindler's act was a deception intended to save innocent people from execution. Sorry, but Schindler's story doesn't make it OK to sell your daughter.

zeek · 03-06-2017, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Your Thai story, according federal law, is a crime. And unlike your Bible, I disagree with all forms of slavery. We, the royal we, are evolving. America has anti-slavery laws. The west, thanks to the renaissance, is leading the way. But other of the royal we haven't caught up yet. We'll get there bro ZNP, but no thanks to the Bible ... that you have clearly pointed out is pro-slavery (tho divinely regulated -- get that : divine human slavery!!!). Get that bro ZNP, divine ordained human slavery! That's what you are saying. Get that bro ZNP!!! Get that!!! Get that!!!

Slavery of any form is wrong. I don't care if God is the dictator of it. A God that institutes human slavery -- in His mind, or in His holy writ -- is not right in the head. Maybe He'll catch on, AND IS. He's just not evolved enough yet (or wasn't 4000 years ago). He'll get there bro ZNP. Let's hope. Give Him a chance. Stop hanging on to ancient out of date writings. You're acting like G.H. Pember. Or better yet, Witness Lee ... with your wild-eyed views of Biblically ordained slavery.

Right. This thread has presented us with a false dilemma. A down vote on slavery in the Bible doesn't logically force an up vote on sweat shops. Without contradiction, both Bible slavery and sweat shops can be immoral.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

No. Schindler's act was a deception intended to save innocent people from execution. Sorry, but Schindler's story doesn't make it OK to sell your daughter.

He spent 4 million German marks to buy 1200 people. It was a written contract. They listed the names. He paid the money to the Commandant of the Concentration camp who "owned" them and had them marked for death.

700 of them were mistakenly sent to a death camp. He went there to get them. He was told "what difference does it make, we can give you another 700". He told them he had a contract, he owned those 700 and threatened legal action if he didn't get his property back.

Who are you to say he didn't buy them?

He then put them into a factory where they worked for him. He provided their food, clothing, housing and other care. His treatment of them was as a slave owner. According to the German law he owned them.

Again, no one is saying, not me, not the Bible, that "it is OK to sell your daughter". What the Bible does say is that this is the regulation for the buyer if someone sells their daughter.

Schindler's purchase (referred to as his list) was facilitated by rabbis that he worked with and it was done in full accordance with Jewish law.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. This thread has presented us with a false dilemma. A down vote on slavery in the Bible doesn't logically force an up vote on sweat shops. Without contradiction, both Bible slavery and sweat shops can be immoral.

Once again, you condemn everything without telling us what the moral and right solution to this dilemma is. Please tell us the solution? 50 million people are hanging on your every word. They live hand to mouth and would like to know what the path of righteousness is?

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

But that is my point.

They don't apply to my current issue with sweatshops because I have nothing to do with sweatshops. While I could go to the trouble of discovering who is using sweatshops and buy from someone else, I otherwise am not involved.

97% of clothes in the US are made in Sweatshops. That doesn't mean that 97% of Americans buy from Sweatshops, rather it means that it is much more likely that 100% of Americans buy clothes from sweatshops except for the rare and unusual item like cowboy boots that might be made in the US.

Your food is picked by illegal aliens. They are not "illegal" because they want to be but because those employing them want them to be. That way they can't complain, they have no rights, etc. Now if you get all of your vegetables from local farmers you might not fall into this category, but it is unlikely. Illegal immigrants also work in meat packing plants. So unless you are a vegetarian you probably are involved in their exploitation as well.

Prison laborers in the US do many jobs including call centers for many Federal offices like the DMV. These prisons are often run by for profit corporations. Also, as you know the US has an extremely high prison population. There are corporate lobbyists for these companies that push to keep the prisons full.

So I don't understand how this does not apply to you or me.

Just like the drug trade, no one would be in the business of supplying drugs if there was no demand for it.

zeek · 03-06-2017, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He spent 4 million German marks to buy 1200 people. It was a written contract. They listed the names. He paid the money to the Commandant of the Concentration camp who "owned" them and had them marked for death.

700 of them were mistakenly sent to a death camp. He went there to get them. He was told "what difference does it make, we can give you another 700". He told them he had a contract, he owned those 700 and threatened legal action if he didn't get his property back.

Who are you to say he didn't buy them?

He then put them into a factory where they worked for him. He provided their food, clothing, housing and other care. His treatment of them was as a slave owner. According to the German law he owned them.

Again, no one is saying, not me, not the Bible, that "it is OK to sell your daughter". What the Bible does say is that this is the regulation for the buyer if someone sells their daughter.

Schindler's purchase (referred to as his list) was facilitated by rabbis that he worked with and it was done in full accordance with Jewish law.

Intention counts. Murder never occurs without it. According to the story, Schindler purchased those people in order to free them from a death sentence. Thus, his intention was the opposite of slavery. It was an act of compassion. To use his heroic act to justify slavery is perverse, a sure sign of your desperate moral position on the slavery issue. It's a limb you have gone out on to save your inerrant Bible position.

I understand that you must feel that the stakes are high on the Bible as the inerrant Word of God issue. But, the absurd extremes that position drives you to should be evidence to you that your position is untenable were you to allow yourself to reflect on it.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

We have lots of illegal immigrants working here on our farms. Not long ago I talked to a farmer that hires them. Newsflash, they aren't slaves. Yes they are willing to work for wages that native Americans aren't willing to make. The answer is to lower the cost of living for us natives so that lower wages will meet our needs.

Newsflash -- "illegal" immigrants are working for many businesses, are often recruited by them while in Mexico or their country of origin, they are brought to the US by these companies with jobs already promised. So then why keep their status "illegal"? Because they don't get the same benefits as Americans, they don't get the same safety precautions as Americans, and if they talk they can be immediately deported and labeled "illegal alien" (felon).

This is unrighteous. They should have a legal status while working, they should be protected with basic regulations, and they should have the right to talk to others without fear of being deported. I am not saying they should be given US citizenship. I would say that a long term work visa should be something they can be given. In this way they could work in the US as long as they like. They don't get Social Security, they don't get the full benefits of citizenship, but their kids can go to public school, they can live here without fear of being deported, they can work in peace, and if they feel this is better than where they came from so be it. Also, this doesn't harm those who followed the proper protocol to become a citizen and stood in line. The path that these illegals took doesn't ever result in citizenship for them (their kids are a different story).

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Intention counts. Murder never occurs without it. According to the story, Schindler purchased those people in order to free them from a death sentence. Thus, his intention was the opposite of slavery. It was an act of compassion. To use his heroic act to justify slavery is perverse, a sure sign of your desperate moral position on the slavery issue. It's a limb you have gone out on to save your inerrant Bible position.

I understand that you must feel that the stakes are high on the Bible as the inerrant Word of God issue. But, the absurd extremes that position drives you to should be evidence to you that your position is untenable were you to allow yourself to reflect on it.

Just what I thought! There is no suggestion anywhere that the "intention" of Biblical slavery is to exploit people.

You are the one who continually changes the definition of slavery.

Slavery was the purchase of people as property. That was the definition we were working with. That is the definition given in the Bible. You have included some secret intention to exploit people and then ascribed this to the Bible. Why? Jesus purchased us with His blood? We are slaves of God. It wasn't to exploit us but to redeem us from sin and save us. I see Oskar Schindler's brand of slavery very similar to the New Testament brand with the same intention.

How are the stakes high for me? Everyone knows we have been purchased by the blood of Jesus, everyone knows the Lord's intention was to save us.

No the stakes are high for anyone who wants to discredit the Bible and claim that it is unrighteous and immoral. Your strongest claim are these laws for slavery and they have fallen on sinking sand because they are based on your opinion that slavery has to include an intention to exploit.

"To the pure all things are pure, to the impure all things are impure".

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Slavery of any form is wrong.

Not in the form of Jesus purchasing us with His blood.

Not in the form of Schindler buying 1,200 people to save them alive.

You still have not answered my question on Post #28. Which would you prefer? Option 1, Option 2 or Option 3?

zeek · 03-06-2017, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again, you condemn everything without telling us what the moral and right solution to this dilemma is. Please tell us the solution? 50 million people are hanging on your every word. They live hand to mouth and would like to know what the path of righteousness is?

It's simple, people should stop taking advantage of others. As Jesus said “Do for others what you would want them to do for you. This is the meaning of the Law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets." [ Matthew 7:12]No one wants slavery. They forced into it in order to survive. We live in a world where there is enough for everyone if it weren't for greed.

But, you're obviously being facetious. The world is not hanging on my every word. Whether I have the solution to it or not, or whether there even is a solution, slavery is wrong. Jesus spoke against greed. [ Luke 12:15] But, he didn't conquer it. So, when you mock me for not solving the problem, it seems to me, you mock him too.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

It's simple, people should stop taking advantage of others. As Jesus said “Do for others what you would want them to do for you. This is the meaning of the Law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets." [ Matthew 7:12]No one wants slavery. They forced into it in order to survive. We live in a world where there is enough for everyone if it weren't for greed.

But, you're obviously being facetious. The world is not hanging on my every word. Whether I have the solution to it or not, or whether there even is a solution, slavery is wrong. Jesus spoke against greed. [ Luke 12:15] But, he didn't conquer it. So, when you mock me for not solving the problem, it seems to me, you mock him too.

OK, do for others what you would want them to do for you.

OK, I would like a job, not charity, not a loan. I would like to be able to work to the best of my ability and make a living wage in which I will not be exploited or put in unnecessary risk of death. That is equivalent to the Biblically regulated slavery. Not permanent, but temporary, perhaps 6 years to dig yourself out of debt enough to move up to a micro loan and subcontract out your own business.

It goes without saying that if I was a Jew in Nazi Germany I would want Schindler to buy me and put me to work in his factory.

I definitely would not want to be an illegal alien, that is exploitive. How can I build a life where I am in fear of being deported forever and ever.

I definitely would not want to work in sweatshop which by definition violates at least 2 laws resulting in my exploitation.

So then what is the debate, you have chosen option 3 in Post #28. That is essentially my point in this thread.

awareness · 03-06-2017, 06:44 PM

Here's something I found interesting concerning slavery :

What The Bible Really Says About Slavery
By Greg Carey [Professor of New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary (PA)]

Slavery stands as the single most contested issue in the history of biblical interpretation in the United States. Not only did the nation fracture over slavery, denominations did too. Northern and Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists remained divided until well into the twentieth century; in fact, Southern Baptists still represent the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. What did slavery mean in the biblical world, and how did biblical authors respond to it?

Don’t let anybody tell you that biblical slavery was somehow less brutal than slavery in the United States. Without exception, biblical societies were slaveholding societies. The Bible engages remarkably diverse cultures — Ethiopian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman — but in every one of them some people owned the rights to others. Slaveowners possessed not only the slaves’ labor but also their sexual and reproductive capacities. When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not “please” their masters, we’re talking about the sexual use of slaves. Likewise when the Bible spells out the conditions for marrying a slave (see Exodus 21:7-11).

The occupations and experiences of slaves varied greatly. Many performed manual labor in horrid conditions, perhaps living only months after beginning their work. Some highly valued slaves attained wealth and status, a possibility reflected in Genesis’ account of Joseph. Perhaps the story of the centurion who highly valued his slave connotes an erotic relationship, likely one-sided (Luke 7:1-10). In all cases the owners’ right to use a slave as the owner sees fit, including the right to punish slaves severely, remain unquestioned.

How did people become slaves? Slavery did not accompany a particular racial status, as it eventually did in the United States, but the Hebrew Bible stipulates preferred treatment for Israelite slaves (see Exodus 21:1-11; 25:39-55; Deuteronomy 15:12-18). Crushing debt forced many into slavery, with some people selling themselves and others selling their children. Military conquest contributed greatly to the slave market as well.

The Bible does not attempt to hide the presence of slaves. Beware modern translations that use “servant” to cover up slave language. Slaves were ubiquitous in the ancient world. Imagine ancient Rome, where slaves made up between one-third and one-half of the inhabitants — perhaps half a million people! The Senate once considered requiring slaves to wear identifying marks, but they stopped short in the face of a chilling realization: if slaves could recognize one another, what would prevent them from organizing and pillaging the entire city?

In the New Testament, Jesus frequently refers to slaves in his parables, the witty stories that marked his most distinctive teaching style. He never addresses slavery as an institution, though unfortunately one of the parables assumes that beating a slave is acceptable (Luke 12:47-48). More controversial is the apostle Paul, often blamed for promoting or condoning slavery. The great African-American theologian Howard Thurman recalled how his illiterate formerly enslaved grandmother would not allow him to read Paul to her. Slave owners, she said, constantly employed Paul’s letters to promote docility among the slaves.

However, more recent scholarship suggests that Paul may have resisted — or at least undermined — slavery. Many scholars believe Paul did not compose six of the thirteen letters attributed to him in the New Testament. It so happens that the most restrictive passages regarding slaves occur in those six disputed letters (see Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-4:1; Titus 2:9-10), while the remaining seven letters leave open the possibility that Paul sided with slaves.

To interject, I knew of the six disputed books, but never connected the difference in them concerning slavery. So even Paul's letters leave us with ambiguity concerning slavery, if that is, we take all the books attributed to Paul as if they were actually written by Paul, as implied by them being canonized. To continue the quote :

One letter calls the slaveowner Philemon to welcome back a certain Onesimus “no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother ... both in the flesh and in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). Is Paul calling for Onesimus to be set free, or simply for his master to receive him with love? Likewise, it strains the imagination that two modern translations of 1 Corinthians 7:21 could vary so greatly, but consider this example.

English Standard Version
Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.

New Revised Standard Version
Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.
Does Paul encourage slaves to embrace their captivity or to gain their freedom?

While we may debate whether Paul encouraged the manumission of Onesimus and other slaves (I think he did) one thing is certain. Some ancient Jews and Christians did resist the practice. The Essenes, likely responsible for our Dead Sea Scrolls, apparently forbade members from owning slaves. The book of Revelation lists slaves among the luxury items that Roman commerce generated by exploiting other societies (18:13). Most touchingly, very ancient documents indicate that some Christians literally sold themselves into slavery to purchase the freedom of others (1 Clement 54:4-5), while some churches collected money to buy slaves’ freedom (Ignatius to Polycarp 4:8-10; Shepherd of Hermas 38.10; 50.8).

There’s a simple explanation for nineteenth century debates on slavery and the Bible: the Bible isn’t exactly clear on the subject. If anything, the Bible made it easier for slavery’s advocates than for its opponents. On the other hand, Robert E. Putnam and David E. Campbell suggest that while religion contributed greatly in the motivation of abolitionists, their adversaries would have promoted slavery with or without religion.

Ohio · 03-06-2017, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just what I thought! There is no suggestion anywhere that the "intention" of Biblical slavery is to exploit people.

You are the one who continually changes the definition of slavery.

Slavery was the purchase of people as property. That was the definition we were working with. That is the definition given in the Bible. You have included some secret intention to exploit people and then ascribed this to the Bible. Why? Jesus purchased us with His blood? We are slaves of God. It wasn't to exploit us but to redeem us from sin and save us. I see Oskar Schindler's brand of slavery very similar to the New Testament brand with the same intention.

How are the stakes high for me? Everyone knows we have been purchased by the blood of Jesus, everyone knows the Lord's intention was to save us.

No the stakes are high for anyone who wants to discredit the Bible and claim that it is unrighteous and immoral. Your strongest claim are these laws for slavery and they have fallen on sinking sand because they are based on your opinion that slavery has to include an intention to exploit.

"To the pure all things are pure, to the impure all things are impure".

Thanks for this post, ZNP.

For me, this circles back to the POE discussion concerning free will. Unless we know evil first hand, having been saved by the Lord, we can never understand how God could transcend the POE dilemma for our benefit.

Likewise with slavery. Unless we somewhat know the ravages of slavery in society, and our own slavery to sin, we could never appreciate the great price paid by the Lamb of God to free us, that we could be free men enslaved to Him. This is the wisdom of God in a mystery, which seems so foolish to the natural man.

Mankind apparently was created to be slaves to someone. Whether we like it or not. Hearing some posters bash Biblical slavery, reminds me of the Pharisees "educating" Jesus saying, "we have never been slaves to anyone."

The Apostle Paul said it best, "he who is a slave, is the Lord's freeman, and he who is free, is the Lord's slave."

awareness · 03-06-2017, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not in the form of Jesus purchasing us with His blood.

You are conflating physical human slavery with metaphysical spiritual slavery. They are two different things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNP

You still have not answered my question on Post #28. Which would you prefer? Option 1, Option 2 or Option 3?

I took your questions as rhetorical. And besides, there's a 4th option : No slavery at all ; especially of the Biblical kind, as it's most repulsive if God is said to sanction it.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's something I found interesting concerning slavery :

[COLOR="DarkRed"]What The Bible Really Says About Slavery
By Greg Carey [Professor of New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary (PA)]

Slavery stands as the single most contested issue in the history of biblical interpretation...

It seems to me that there is not a clear distinction or definition of the terms.

Slavery conducted by people in the Biblical times was horrendous. I am not just talking about Egypt, or the tribes surrounding Israel, or Rome or Greece, but many of the Israelites as well. I never can understand why those on this forum cannot make the distinction. Those in the LRC are Christians, that doesn't mean everything they did was sanctioned by the Bible. We have itemized in great detail their sins and errors and violations of Biblical precepts and commands. Why would anyone think it would be any different with Israel? The prophets make it clear that they "honored God with their mouth but their heart was far from Him".

I am not taking a position that Israelite slavery was righteous, or that slavery in Biblical times was righteous. My position has always been very precise: "Biblically regulated slavery".

1. Yes, we know that Southern Slave holders attempted to justify their actions with a despicable interpretation of the Bible. If anyone pushed those ideas here we (or I) would relish the opportunity to dismantle and destroy those teachings.

2. I am not saying that Biblical slavery is less brutal (that is, slavery during the same time the Bible was written), I am saying that "Biblically regulated slavery" is less brutal (slavery that follows the laws and regulations given by Moses).

3. One of the most heinous teachings was the association of slavery with racism. That is not a component in any way, shape or form in the Bible. Noah cursing one of his sons is a pathetic attempt to justify something that is evil and is no different from Satan tempting Jesus with Bible verses.

4. People chose slavery in the Bible because of debt, famine, war, and crimes. There was no prison. You paid for your debt in cash, with your life, or hand, eye, or by selling yourself to pay the debt.

5. My use of Jesus and Schindler does not presume that they were the norm, only that they were the possible, the ideal, and the expression of the kingdom righteousness.

Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish but to fulfill every jot and tittle of the law. What does that mean? Obviously it must include these verses on slavery.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

You are conflating physical human slavery with metaphysical spiritual slavery. They are two different things.

This is absurd. I am referring to the Laws of Moses, which Jesus said He had come to fulfill, not to abolish. That means we can look at Jesus to understand these laws about slavery. Saying you can't is absurd. Schindler's list of 1200 people was not "metaphysical spiritual slavery". It was flesh and blood people who were bought and paid for (redeemed) from death and saved. Schindler gave every dollar he had, and may have been inspired by Jesus who gave every drop of blood He had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I took your questions as rhetorical. And besides, there's a 4th option : No slavery at all ; especially of the Biblical kind, as it's most repulsive if God is said to sanction it.

There are 50 million people who are alive today and would be dead in a month without their current job (option 1 or option 2). It isn't a rhetorical question for them.

No doubt they would love option 4, can you explain how that works exactly because it could really solve a whole lot of problems.

ZNPaaneah · 03-06-2017, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for this post, ZNP.

For me, this circles back to the POE discussion concerning free will. Unless we know evil first hand, having been saved by the Lord, we can never understand how God could transcend the POE dilemma for our benefit.

Likewise with slavery. Unless we somewhat know the ravages of slavery in society, and our own slavery to sin, we could never appreciate the great price paid by the Lamb of God to free us, that we could be free men enslaved to Him. This is the wisdom of God in a mystery, which seems so foolish to the natural man.

Mankind apparently was created to be slaves to someone. Whether we like it or not. Hearing some posters bash Biblical slavery, reminds me of the Pharisees "educating" Jesus saying, "we have never been slaves to anyone."

The Apostle Paul said it best, "he who is a slave, is the Lord's freeman, and he who is free, is the Lord's slave."

Yes, I think it is those who know the evil of slavery are blinded and cannot see that it can be righteousness. They see a snake in every garden. To them slavery in any form is wrong. How about Jesus redeeming us with His blood? Nope, that was metaphysical and spiritual? I'm pretty sure the Roman's who were scourging Him would disagree, as would the witnesses who saw him nailed to the cross. I imagine Simon of Cyrene would argue that the cross was not spiritual but physical.

What about Schindler. Nope, you see his intention was to save people so that could not be slavery. Did he buy 1200 people? Yes. Was it a legal contract that the Nazi's recognized? Yes. Did he then put them to work in his factory, feed, house and care for them as any other slave owner? Yes. But because he wasn't trying to exploit them then it can't be slavery. Talk about confirmation bias!

Ohio · 03-06-2017, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Talk about confirmation bias!

We can only see confirmation bias in others, not ourselves.

But, in saying that, it is always wisest and safest to align ourselves with scripture, and with righteousness.

ZNPaaneah · 03-07-2017, 05:56 AM

Ben Carson just referred to slaves as 'immigrants' Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson referred to slaves as "immigrants" while speaking Monday to department employees. ... "There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less.18 hours ago USA Today

Perhaps, but unlike illegal immigrants the slaves had a legal status in the US and have not been threatened with deportation.

I wonder why Carson would refer to slaves as immigrants? Technically I guess you could say they had a status as both a slave and an immigrant. Perhaps immigrant is more humanizing. Perhaps he wants the black community to empathize with the immigrant community? Don't know, just wondering.

Perhaps Awareness can send him a message that he is conflating the issue and OBW can let him know that these are two unrelated issues.

ZNPaaneah · 03-07-2017, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't recall ever saying sweatshops were voluntary. Where did you get that idea?

Post #35 you said that slavery is not really slavery if it is voluntary.

In response I asked that since slavery in the Bible is voluntary does that mean you don't really consider it slavery. I did not see your answer to this.

awareness · 03-07-2017, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps Awareness can send him a message that he is conflating the issue. . . .

Why wake him up?

awareness · 03-07-2017, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It seems to me that there is not a clear distinction or definition of the terms.

Slavery conducted by people in the Biblical times was horrendous. I am not just talking about Egypt, or the tribes surrounding Israel, or Rome or Greece, but many of the Israelites as well. I never can understand why those on this forum cannot make the distinction. Those in the LRC are Christians, that doesn't mean everything they did was sanctioned by the Bible. We have itemized in great detail their sins and errors and violations of Biblical precepts and commands. Why would anyone think it would be any different with Israel? The prophets make it clear that they "honored God with their mouth but their heart was far from Him".

I am not taking a position that Israelite slavery was righteous, or that slavery in Biblical times was righteous. My position has always been very precise: "Biblically regulated slavery".

1. Yes, we know that Southern Slave holders attempted to justify their actions with a despicable interpretation of the Bible. If anyone pushed those ideas here we (or I) would relish the opportunity to dismantle and destroy those teachings.

2. I am not saying that Biblical slavery is less brutal (that is, slavery during the same time the Bible was written), I am saying that "Biblically regulated slavery" is less brutal (slavery that follows the laws and regulations given by Moses).

3. One of the most heinous teachings was the association of slavery with racism. That is not a component in any way, shape or form in the Bible. Noah cursing one of his sons is a pathetic attempt to justify something that is evil and is no different from Satan tempting Jesus with Bible verses.

4. People chose slavery in the Bible because of debt, famine, war, and crimes. There was no prison. You paid for your debt in cash, with your life, or hand, eye, or by selling yourself to pay the debt.

5. My use of Jesus and Schindler does not presume that they were the norm, only that they were the possible, the ideal, and the expression of the kingdom righteousness.

Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish but to fulfill every jot and tittle of the law. What does that mean? Obviously it must include these verses on slavery.

Jesus more than had opportunity to state that slavery is wrong ... but didn't. Instead he told a parable about beating a slave.

No wonder the Southern Baptist's supported holding humans as slaves. The Bible does not say that slavery is wrong.

Maybe Paul's uncontested books redeemed all that. However, most Bible believers aren't New Testament scholars, and accept his contested books as God's word, without question.

So the Bible offers no rejection of slavery as wrong. It offers enough ambiguity concerning slavery to leave it open enough for the Southern Baptist's to support slavery, and for you to cook up this idea of Biblically regulated slavery.

While the most probable answer to the question of the Bible and slavery is that the Bible is wrong.

zeek · 03-07-2017, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just what I thought! There is no suggestion anywhere that the "intention" of Biblical slavery is to exploit people.

You are the one who continually changes the definition of slavery.

Slavery was the purchase of people as property. That was the definition we were working with. That is the definition given in the Bible. You have included some secret intention to exploit people and then ascribed this to the Bible. Why? Jesus purchased us with His blood? We are slaves of God. It wasn't to exploit us but to redeem us from sin and save us. I see Oskar Schindler's brand of slavery very similar to the New Testament brand with the same intention.

How are the stakes high for me? Everyone knows we have been purchased by the blood of Jesus, everyone knows the Lord's intention was to save us.

No the stakes are high for anyone who wants to discredit the Bible and claim that it is unrighteous and immoral. Your strongest claim are these laws for slavery and they have fallen on sinking sand because they are based on your opinion that slavery has to include an intention to exploit.

"To the pure all things are pure, to the impure all things are impure".

Ordinarily slavery entailed the intention of exploitation. People kept other people as property to exploit their labor. That's what the institution of slavery was all about.

People would occasionally sell themselves into slavery in order to survive. They voluntarily gave up their freedom. They probably thought that their options were slavery or death. Given that option some, like Spartacus, chose death. There are cases of people purchasing slaves to set them free as well.

As you have recognized in other contexts, free will is essential to being human. When we were discussing the problem of evil, you maintained that God valued freedom so much that He allowed sin just so we could be free. Now, you're claiming that God sanctions an institution that requires relinquishing freedom. So, if you want to continue to argue for God sanctioned slavery, you'll need to find another reason for God permitting sin.

As for Jesus purchasing us with his blood, did he purchase us to be slaves or to set us free?

ZNPaaneah · 03-07-2017, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Jesus more than had opportunity to state that slavery is wrong ... but didn't. Instead he told a parable about beating a slave.

No wonder the Southern Baptist's supported holding humans as slaves. The Bible does not say that slavery is wrong.

Maybe Paul's uncontested books redeemed all that. However, most Bible believers aren't New Testament scholars, and accept his contested books as God's word, without question.

So the Bible offers no rejection of slavery as wrong. It offers enough ambiguity concerning slavery to leave it open enough for the Southern Baptist's to support slavery, and for you to cook up this idea of Biblically regulated slavery.

While the most probable answer to the question of the Bible and slavery is that the Bible is wrong.

Slavery isn't wrong, exploitation is. The Bible says very clearly that exploitation is wrong. You are confusing the purchase of people in exchange for work done in the future (slavery) with exploitation. If I owe $100,000 and someone pays that debt in exchange for 6 years of labor in which I am also provided food and clothing (not unlike the military) and I choose this option voluntarily how is that evil. This gives me a chance to "be all I can be" and to "see the world" and to get real world skills.

1. If I am destitute giving me a job is right, not wrong.

2. If I am homeless and have nothing to eat I won't be able to wait 2 weeks for my first paycheck. In this case slavery is far more preferable.

3. People should be given the option, if slavery is voluntary who are you to tell someone it is wrong for them to make this choice?

4. Redeeming people who are marked for death, as Schindler did, is not wrong, it is righteous.

What is wrong is exploitation and both the Bible and Jesus were very clear on that. Southern plantation slavery was very plainly exploitation and there was no Biblical justification for that.

ZNPaaneah · 03-07-2017, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Ordinarily slavery entailed the intention of exploitation. People kept other people as property to exploit their labor. That's what the institution of slavery was all about.

People would occasionally sell themselves into slavery in order to survive. They voluntarily gave up their freedom. They probably thought that their options were slavery or death. Given that option some, like Spartacus, chose death. There are cases of people purchasing slaves to set them free as well.

As you have recognized in other contexts, free will is essential to being human. When we were discussing the problem of evil, you maintained that God valued freedom so much that He allowed sin just so we could be free. Now, you're claiming that God sanctions an institution that requires relinquishing freedom. So, if you want to continue to argue for God sanctioned slavery, you'll need to find another reason for God permitting sin.

As for Jesus purchasing us with his blood, did he purchase us to be slaves or to set us free?

Once again there is no indication that God sanctioned slavery. The Bible regulates it, that is not the same as sanctioning it. Moses also permitted divorce but that was clearly not sanctioned.

If God created man to have a free will then that includes choosing to own slaves and to become slaves. That is man exercising his free will.

I do not agree that "ordinarily slavery included the intention of exploitation". In the Bible (and in history) there are many examples of slaves "loving their master" and choosing to not go free. Instead I would say this was a viable economic model prior to the industrial and technological revolution. There is no intention that slavery includes demeaning or degrading work, or racist policies, or twisted teachings, or forbidding slaves to be educated. This thread was prompted by a post from Awareness that we did away with slavery due to our enlightened humanistic view. That was absurd. First, slavery has not been done away with. Second, the reason we don't have "slavery" today in the US as the Southern Plantation form is because it is far less economic. Sweatshops and illegal immigrants are a far more profitable model.

Awareness has extolled the virtues of the US legal system with regards to slavery yet there is little or no punishment to companies like Meat packers and Walmart that employ illegal immigrants and sub contract from sweatshops. If there were this exploitation would be stopped immediately.

awareness · 03-07-2017, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for this post, ZNP.

For me, this circles back to the POE discussion concerning free will. Unless we know evil first hand, having been saved by the Lord, we can never understand how God could transcend the POE dilemma for our benefit.

Likewise with slavery. Unless we somewhat know the ravages of slavery in society, and our own slavery to sin, we could never appreciate the great price paid by the Lamb of God to free us, that we could be free men enslaved to Him. This is the wisdom of God in a mystery, which seems so foolish to the natural man.

Mankind apparently was created to be slaves to someone. Whether we like it or not. Hearing some posters bash Biblical slavery, reminds me of the Pharisees "educating" Jesus saying, "we have never been slaves to anyone."

The Apostle Paul said it best, "he who is a slave, is the Lord's freeman, and he who is free, is the Lord's slave."

Great post Ohio. I especially liked : "we can never understand how God could transcend the POE dilemma for our benefit." Does He do that?

Question : Are we free to be slaves?

Perhaps the reason I'm so antithetical to slavery is because I resent being enslaved in the local church.

awareness · 03-07-2017, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Slavery isn't wrong

Thanks for stating your position. I hope we agree to disagree.

Ohio · 03-07-2017, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Great post Ohio. I especially liked : "we can never understand how God could transcend the POE dilemma for our benefit." Does He do that?

Question : Are we free to be slaves?

Perhaps the reason I'm so antithetical to slavery is because I resent being enslaved in the local church.

The Bible presents the greatest freedom as being a slave of Jesus Christ.

Obviously that's not for you.

And yes, God transcends the POE dilemma, confounding all those who claim to be wise.

ZNPaaneah · 03-07-2017, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for stating your position. I hope we agree to disagree.

I think by now that is a given. (BTW glad to know you were emancipated from the LRC)

Ohio · 03-07-2017, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Jesus more than had opportunity to state that slavery is wrong ... but didn't. Instead he told a parable about beating a slave.

No wonder the Southern Baptist's supported holding humans as slaves. The Bible does not say that slavery is wrong.

Maybe Paul's uncontested books redeemed all that. However, most Bible believers aren't New Testament scholars, and accept his contested books as God's word, without question.

So the Bible offers no rejection of slavery as wrong. It offers enough ambiguity concerning slavery to leave it open enough for the Southern Baptist's to support slavery, and for you to cook up this idea of Biblically regulated slavery.

While the most probable answer to the question of the Bible and slavery is that the Bible is wrong.

Have you forgotten that it was the Democratic Party that fought so hard to maintain slavery in the USA. Using the Bible is nothing new for them. Both Northern and Southern Democrats fought against their emancipation. It was never above the Democrats to use a few preachers for their own agenda. Look what they did to "Reverends" Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.

The Bible, and its effect on mankind, has done more for human rights, women's rights, etc. than any other book in history. One would never know that reading most of the posts on this supposedly Christian forum.

OBW · 03-07-2017, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This regulation is on the one buying the girl, not the one selling her. It doesn't say that it is "OK" or "righteous" to sell her, it makes no judgement on that. What it does do is regulate the person buying her.

You honestly think that putting a regulation on the one buying but not the one selling makes no comment on whether the sale itself is allowed?

Talk about stupid. If the sale is not allowed, then the regulation to the one who would buy would have to be "don't do it." Otherwise, there can be no claim that the sale even might not be allowed. If the one under God's rule can buy, then the sale is not condemned.

There is much to see concerning how God has directed us toward not having slavery. But he did not do it by edict. He did it by the change in the hearts and minds of humans. And there are still humans that don't think that slavery is entirely bad.

I would strongly disagree. Even if they conclude that slavery as practiced according to the Bible was better than someone's current conditions.

OBW · 03-07-2017, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not an expert on Jewish history by any stretch but I do know of at least one example in Jewish history of a slave owner of Jewish slaves including girls who was considered righteous according to Jewish law. Not only so, it was his purchase of these slaves that is considered his ultimate righteousness. He bought 1,000 Jews from the Nazis. Oskar Schindler.

You mistake his actions as that of slavery. Instead, he redeemed them from certain death into the only place that he could hope to keep them alive until something happened to change their dire circumstances. Their inability to just leave was not because he refused them that right, but because those one the outside would refuse them that right and would have returned them to either Schindler or to the concentration camps. He was not a slave owner. He was the German equivalent of the underground railway.

ZNPaaneah · 03-07-2017, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

You honestly think that putting a regulation on the one buying but not the one selling makes no comment on whether the sale itself is allowed?

Talk about stupid. If the sale is not allowed, then the regulation to the one who would buy would have to be "don't do it." Otherwise, there can be no claim that the sale even might not be allowed. If the one under God's rule can buy, then the sale is not condemned.

There is much to see concerning how God has directed us toward not having slavery. But he did not do it by edict. He did it by the change in the hearts and minds of humans. And there are still humans that don't think that slavery is entirely bad.

I would strongly disagree. Even if they conclude that slavery as practiced according to the Bible was better than someone's current conditions.

The sale of a woman slave is not allowed. Read your Bible before you call people stupid. The only person that the Bible allows to sell a girl is the father.

I think the Bible is very clear that there is a permissive will. Divorce is allowed, that doesn't mean that the Bible or God or Jesus says it is "OK".

ZNPaaneah · 03-07-2017, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

You mistake his actions as that of slavery. Instead, he redeemed them from certain death into the only place that he could hope to keep them alive until something happened to change their dire circumstances. Their inability to just leave was not because he refused them that right, but because those one the outside would refuse them that right and would have returned them to either Schindler or to the concentration camps. He was not a slave owner. He was the German equivalent of the underground railway.

We are defining slavery based on the Biblical definition that they were "property". According to the law, according to the contract, according to the transaction Schindler purchased 1200 workers for his factory. When 700 were accidentally shipped to a death camp he went there to retrieve his "property". When the guards told him what difference does it make we'll get you another 700 he threatened legal action until they gave him the 700 he owned.

He then took them to a factory to work. He housed them, fed them and was responsible for them in the same way that any slave owner would be.

The motive in purchasing a slave is not anywhere in the Bible as a legitimate definition. If your opinion of the definition includes the idea of exploitation, then that is not Biblically regulated slavery. This thread is about the laws concerning slavery in the Bible.

You equate slavery with exploitation, but that is not Biblically accurate. According to the Bible it is very reasonable that a slave would say "I love my master and do not want to go free". The letter that the Jews wrote at the end of the war made it very clear they loved Oskar Schindler and didn't want him to be prosecuted for the crimes of the Nazis.

OBW · 03-07-2017, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The sale of a woman slave is not allowed. Read your Bible before you call people stupid. The only person that the Bible allows to sell a girl is the father.

Then don't imply that the only rule is to the owner of the slave and not the seller.

The fact is that you are still running all over the place trying to make things out of these passages that just aren't there.

And when it comes to stupid, you just keep putting your foot in your mouth like this. Say one thing one way, then dance around and say something else and say they need to read their Bible.

You want to say something meaningful from the Bible, then quote the Bible. You are no better than the charlatan Lee when you just say "read your Bible." If you think you have a passage that speaks specifically to something, then provide it. Don't mamby-pamby around saying things like . . .

Quote:

This regulation is on the one buying the girl, not the one selling her. It doesn't say that it is "OK" or "righteous" to sell her, it makes no judgement on that. What it does do is regulate the person buying her.

then say it is denied in the Bible. If that is true, then while one passage may not comment on it, you misrepresented the scripture by suggesting that it makes no judgment on the matter if another does.

Still just as stupid.

OBW · 03-07-2017, 01:53 PM

Z,

Yours is a truly dizzying intellect. The house of cards that you build out of Bible verses to create a framework from which you can then declare sinners to be worse than they already are is truly remarkable. Or alternately for the purpose of forcing every situation into the Bible — to what beneficial end I am never sure.

But you persist in one crazy word study after another to find what isn't there.

zeek · 03-07-2017, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again there is no indication that God sanctioned slavery. The Bible regulates it, that is not the same as sanctioning it. Moses also permitted divorce but that was clearly not sanctioned.

Legal permission is sanction. The Lord said

Quote:

"If you want slaves, buy them from other nations. " Leviticus 25:44 CEV

That's sanctioning it. That which is unlawful is not regulated. The Bible's God could have abolished slavery. He could have issued a commandment: " Thou shalt not keep slaves." Instead he permitted it and regulated it. Moses' permission of divorce meant that divorce was legally sanctioned.

There were no age restrictions to slavery. The Lord sanctioned buying children. In Leviticus 25 the Lord says:

Quote:

44 “About your men and women slaves: You may get men and women slaves from the other nations around you. 45 Also, you may get children as slaves if they come from the families of the foreigners living in your land. These child slaves will belong to you. 46 You may even pass these foreign slaves on to your children after you die so that they will belong to them. They will be your slaves forever. You may make slaves of these foreigners. But you must not be a cruel master over your own brothers, the Israelites. [ERV]

The Lord had different rules for Israelites and foreigners. It was OK with the Lord if Israelites were cruel masters to foreigners. In Exodus the Lord permits owning Israelite slaves too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If God created man to have a free will then that includes choosing to own slaves and to become slaves. That is man exercising his free will.

...and denying free will to others. What kind of moral midget thinks that's acceptable?

God issued 10 commandments against human activities he judged to be evil. There was no commandment against slavery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not agree that "ordinarily slavery included the intention of exploitation". In the Bible (and in history) there are many examples of slaves "loving their master" and choosing to not go free.

Exploit means to make full use of and derive benefit from a resource. Slave owners certainly made use of and derived benefit from slaves as a resource. That's true regardless how the slaves felt about it. If a slave had no viable means of surviving, they understandably might choose to remain a slave.

Quote:

The Lord gave Moses the following laws for his people: 2 If you buy a Hebrew slave, he must remain your slave for six years. But in the seventh year you must set him free, without cost to him. 3 If he was single at the time you bought him, he alone must be set free. But if he was married at the time, both he and his wife must be given their freedom. 4 If you give him a wife, and they have children, only the man himself must be set free; his wife and children remain the property of his owner.
5 But suppose the slave loves his wife and children so much that he won’t leave without them. 6 Then he must stand beside either the door or the doorpost at the place of worship,[a] while his owner punches a small hole through one of his ears with a sharp metal rod. This makes him a slave for life. Exodus 21:1-6 (CEV)

So, the Lord said it was OK to coerce your male slave to stay a slave for life by retaining his wife and children as slaves. It was Witness Lee who taught us to romanticize and allegorize that passage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Instead I would say this was a viable economic model prior to the industrial and technological revolution. There is no intention that slavery includes demeaning or degrading work, or racist policies, or twisted teachings, or forbidding slaves to be educated.

So you don't think moral reform had anything to do with it? Reading history I find that with the rise of the consciousness of human rights, a growing number of people questioned the morality of slavery. So, for example, do you think that it was merely technological expedience that motivated William Wilberforce when in 1791 he said to the House of Commons

Quote:

"Never, never will we desist till we have wiped away this scandal from the Christian name, released ourselves from the load of guilt, under which we at present labour, and extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity,looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonour to this country." ?

To suppose that Wilberforce's opinion was merely economic expediency would be a cynical assessment. But, perhaps you judge cynicism to be a small price to pay to preserve faith in an inerrant Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This thread was prompted by a post from Awareness that we did away with slavery due to our enlightened humanistic view. That was absurd. First, slavery has not been done away with.

Perhaps Aware simply meant that the emerging consciousness of human rights led to making slavery illegal. Making it illegal was progress, don't you think? I think you are quite capable of reasoning beyond all- or- nothing or black/white categories. It's just that your polemics are driven by zeal to preserve your fundamentalism.

But, yes slavery still exists: http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/ As a percentage of the world's population, all forms of slavery may be the lowest they've ever been, but millions of people are still being exploited and we need to end it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Second, the reason we don't have "slavery" today in the US as the Southern Plantation form is because it is far less economic. Sweatshops and illegal immigrants are a far more profitable model.

If only history were that simple. The causes of human behavior are always multiple. The rise of human rights and improved technology occurred during the same period of history, so it's impossible to tease them apart with certainty. Judgments about phenomenal world are always matters of more or less. That's why I said below that this issue is not likely to be resolved with certainty here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Awareness has extolled the virtues of the US legal system with regards to slavery yet there is little or no punishment to companies like Meat packers and Walmart that employ illegal immigrants and sub contract from sweatshops. If there were this exploitation would be stopped immediately.

I'm glad to see you are indignant about these abuses. I appreciate your bringing all this to my attention, because, while I do try to help, I haven't been giving enough attention to the suffering of people throughout the world.

But, I must observe that your indignation is selective as you turn a blind eye on the abuses that the Lord sanctioned in the Bible. I'm opposed to all abuses of human rights, regardless of who the perpetrator is, whereas you seem to want to give Biblically sanctioned slavery a pass in order to preserve your belief in the Bible's infallibility.

ZNPaaneah · 03-07-2017, 04:57 PM

The word sanction can mean permission for an act. In that sense the Bible does sanction slavery.

It can also mean approval of an act. There is no verse that suggests the Bible approves of someone selling themself as a slave. In fact there are several verses that suggest this is a curse. That said, the act of Jesus in redeeming us is certainly approved.

Therefore this is not a black and white simple yes and no answer. God does not approve of the sin that led to us being sold as slaves. He does approve of the sacrifice of Jesus in buying us out of slavery to sin and death.

ZNPaaneah · 03-07-2017, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

So you don't think moral reform had anything to do with it? Reading history I find that with the rise of the consciousness of human rights, a growing number of people questioned the morality of slavery. So, for example, do you think that it was merely technological expedience that motivated William Wilberforce when in 1791 he said to the House of Commons
To suppose that Wilberforce's opinion was merely economic expediency would be a cynical assessment. But, perhaps you judge cynicism to be a small price to pay to preserve faith in an inerrant Bible.

Perhaps Aware simply meant that the emerging consciousness of human rights led to making slavery illegal. Making it illegal was progress, don't you think? I think you are quite capable of reasoning beyond all- or- nothing or black/white categories. It's just that your polemics are driven by zeal to preserve your fundamentalism.

But, yes slavery still exists: http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/ As a percentage of the world's population, all forms of slavery may be the lowest they've ever been, but millions of people are still being exploited and we need to end it.

If only history were that simple. The causes of human behavior are always multiple. The rise of human rights and improved technology occurred during the same period of history, so it's impossible to tease them apart with certainty. Judgments about phenomenal world are always matters of more or less. That's why I said below that this issue is not likely to be resolved with certainty here.

I'm glad to see you are indignant about these abuses. I appreciate your bringing all this to my attention, because, while I do try to help, I haven't been giving enough attention to the suffering of people throughout the world.

But, I must observe that your indignation is selective as you turn a blind eye on the abuses that the Lord sanctioned in the Bible. I'm opposed to all abuses of human rights, regardless of who the perpetrator is, whereas you seem to want to give Biblically sanctioned slavery a pass in order to preserve your belief in the Bible's infallibility.

Of course I think moral reform had a lot to do with it, and this moral reform started in earnest with Jesus and the gospels.

The problem I have with this is that the laws against slavery only apply in the developed world.

For example you and Awareness and OBW have made much of my comparison of slavery with illegal aliens and sweatshops. But never once have any of you denied the basic premise that these situations are just as immoral, just as exploitative, and just as widespread.

For example, lets compare the rights of a slave with the rights of a worker in a sweatshop. Do you think a slave owner would want to have 900+ slaves burned to death in a fire? That is his property. He would be financially ruined. But what about the sweatshop? Surely they don't want it to happen either, but it doesn't ruin them, they just hire another 900 and keep on going. Walmart or whoever is completely protected and pretends innocence.

Consider the illegal alien. Suppose he is working doing construction and someone steals his pickup truck. Can he go to the police? Won't they just deport him? But how about the slave who drives the master's car into town. No one is going to steal that car because you can be sure that Master will bring the police down on them.

Yes slavery was and is abusive, but the owner doesn't want to kill his slave, that would be idiotic. If the slave is sick they will get a doctor. If the slave is a child they get to grow up to a certain age. If the slave is old they give them a less strenuous job to do. But what about the sweatshop -- if you don't work you don't eat. If you are sick you don't eat. If you are old might as well just go somewhere and die, there are no benefits, retirement package, etc.

So then where is this moral reform? Today we have 11 million illegal aliens without any status or legal protection, we have 40 million working in sweatshops and we have 2 million prison laborers. 52 million in total, compared to about 4 million slaves at the time of the Civil war. Where is the moral reform? I have looked for it but don't see it. What I do see is that sweatshops and illegal aliens are convenient economic tool for super cheap labor involved in high risk jobs. The illegal status of both eliminates any liability or nasty civil lawsuits. The current system is both more exploitative and more economic. Don't have to take care of slaves when they are kids or when they are old. By all means open my eyes. I have no doubt that there are many people that dislike slavery, but so what, that isn't why it has been replaced with illegal aliens and sweatshops because those things are equally displeasing.

I don't turn a blind eye to the horrors depicted in the Bible. I examine them, carefully. This is based on a trust and faith in Jesus. Had Jesus said that He had come to abolish the OT law I would give your thesis of "sanctioned abuses in the Bible" more credibility. But He didn't say that, He said He was the missing puzzle piece, He came to fulfill the law and prophets. Yes I am cynical. I am cynical of any claim that some politician, British or American is more righteous and just than Jesus.

awareness · 03-07-2017, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you forgotten that it was the Democratic Party that fought so hard to maintain slavery in the USA.

It's not lost on me that just a generation ago my family from betwixt the rivers were racists democrats. And also, that their descendents are now republican Fox news watching racists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Using the Bible is nothing new for them.

My cousin that told us that we weren't following God's laws concerning holding Ham's descendents as slaves, is a sworn Fox news only dyed in the wool republican. Proving, racism is not as partisan as you seem to be making it out to be. But yes, I know the great emancipator, Lincoln, was our first Republican.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible, and its effect on mankind, has done more for human rights, women's rights, etc. than any other book in history.

It has also done harm to human & women's rights. Can't we admit that it's a two-edged sword? That it cuts both ways?

And :
Who down here gets to declare just what a Christian is? ... and who decides who they are?

Ohio · 03-07-2017, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Z,

Yours is a truly dizzying intellect. The house of cards that you build out of Bible verses to create a framework from which you can then declare sinners to be worse than they already are is truly remarkable. Or alternately for the purpose of forcing every situation into the Bible — to what beneficial end I am never sure.

But you persist in one crazy word study after another to find what isn't there.

I think you are misunderstanding what ZNP writes. His starting point is God and His word are true, and we must have our minds renewed according to the mind of God.

On the contrary, other posters start with their own liberal imaginations, and then examine God and His word according to that. The first is top down thinking, the second is bottoms up.

Ohio · 03-07-2017, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

It's not lost on me that just a generation ago my family from betwixt the rivers were racists democrats. And also, that their descendents are now republican Fox news watching racists.

My cousin that told us that we weren't following God's laws concerning holding Ham's descendents as slaves, is a sworn Fox news only dyed in the wool republican. Proving, racism is not as partisan as you seem to be making it out to be. But yes, I know the great emancipator, Lincoln, was our first Republican.

It has also done harm to human & women's rights. Can't we admit that it's a two-edged sword? That it cuts both ways?

And :
Who down here gets to declare just what a Christian is? ... and who decides who they are?

The Bible never did harm to women's rights, except for those who abstain from abortion, considering it to be murder.

And don't you hate the Kennedy Democrats for taking your land betwixt the rivers.

Are you now the family racist detector?

awareness · 03-07-2017, 06:20 PM

I have to interject here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

But, yes slavery still exists: http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/ As a percentage of the world's population, all forms of slavery may be the lowest they've ever been, but millions of people are still being exploited and we need to end it.

And ZNP's Biblically regulated slavery won't end it. At best, it will be considered good slavery ... God's ordained slavery ... but slavery still.

As I've more or less stated already, I'm not able to go with slavery of any kind. Just because my father was a stone cold racist, and the Bible supports it, doesn't mean I have to be one. Throw me in the fire if you have to, I don't care. I'm standing up for the rights & dignity of all image-bearers.

zeek · 03-07-2017, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I have to interject here:

And ZNP's Biblically regulated slavery won't end it. At best, it will be considered good slavery ... God's ordained slavery ... but slavery still.

As I've more or less stated already, I'm not able to go with slavery of any kind. Just because my father was a stone cold racist, and the Bible supports it, doesn't mean I have to be one. Throw me in the fire if you have to, I don't care. I'm standing up for the rights & dignity of all image-bearers.

Well here's the status of slavery in the world today according to the website I linked:

Quote:

"The countries with the highest estimated prevalence of modern slavery by the proportion of their population are North Korea, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, India, and Qatar. In North Korea, there is pervasive evidence that government-sanctioned forced labour occurs in an extensive system of prison labour camps while North Korean women are subjected to forced marriage and commercial sexual exploitation in China and other neighbouring states. In Uzbekistan, the government continues to subject its citizens to forced labour in the annual cotton harvest.

Those countries with the highest absolute numbers of people in modern slavery are India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Uzbekistan. Several of these countries provide the low-cost labour that produces consumer goods for markets in Western Europe, Japan, North America and Australia.

There are an estimated 57,700 people in modern slavery in the US, according to GSI estimates. There could be as many as 2,472,000 trafficking victims just among unauthorized Mexican immigrants in the U.S…”[1] The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) estimates that “1 in 5 of the 11,800 runways reported to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in 2015 were likely sex trafficking victims.”[2]

Of course, none of these facts makes the biblical sanction of slavery OK as ZNP started this thread to argue.

Ohio · 03-07-2017, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I have to interject here:

And ZNP's Biblically regulated slavery won't end it. At best, it will be considered good slavery ... God's ordained slavery ... but slavery still.

As I've more or less stated already, I'm not able to go with slavery of any kind. Just because my father was a stone cold racist, and the Bible supports it, doesn't mean I have to be one. Throw me in the fire if you have to, I don't care. I'm standing up for the rights & dignity of all image-bearers.

But don't you see what a racist you also have become?

awareness · 03-07-2017, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

But don't you see what a racist you also have become?

I do not see. Please explain it to me.

Ohio · 03-07-2017, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I do not see. Please explain it to me.

You continue to express wholesale derogatory attitudes towards whole races of people including your own family, and especially all Christians.

awareness · 03-08-2017, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You continue to express wholesale derogatory attitudes towards whole races of people including your own family, and especially all Christians.

Well that's not racism. But I did get kicked off a local forum about between the rivers for exposing my father as an unapologetic racist. Apparently it struck a nerve. Racism was rampant in betwixt the rivers. They let blacks come in and work, but woe to them if they didn't leave by nightfall. My daddy fit right in.

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

But, I must observe that your indignation is selective as you turn a blind eye on the abuses that the Lord sanctioned in the Bible. I'm opposed to all abuses of human rights, regardless of who the perpetrator is, whereas you seem to want to give Biblically sanctioned slavery a pass in order to preserve your belief in the Bible's infallibility.

Wow, turning a blind eye, not thinking this through, giving unrighteousness a pass. OK you guys (Zeek, Awareness, and OBW) have caused me to reassess my position. Now I have a question, I am having a harder time thinking this through than you apparently have.

Let's suppose I paid $300,000 to redeem a debt for someone who is selling themselves into slavery for 6 years. Let's say they were like Bernie Madoff, caught for fraud, or they lost it playing poker, or they were a thief.

Now according to you and Awareness and OBW it is OK if this is voluntary, temporary, and not some kind of racist practice. What really makes this evil is that I am permitted to beat this slave. The Bible according to you sanctions my beating of this slave. Now last night I saw on the news a woman who pushed a 4 year old down the stairs at a day care. She was immediately fired. The kid wasn't hurt, but I think we can all agree she has no business working in a day care. So I am assuming this is an example of the difference between us and the Bible, you three claim we have a much more sensitive view towards the righteousness of violence than they did back then. We do not condone beating slaves today, much less pushing a 4 year old, but the Bible sanctioned it.

But I do have this question and I hope you will help me with it because I apparently am not able to think this through as well as you guys. So I have now bought a scam artist like Bernie Madoff to work for the next 6 years in exchange for his $300,000 debt. But two weeks after I buy him and pay off his debt he goes to the police. He has a black eye, a bloody nose and a fat lip. He says I beat him. I say I didn't. Now what?

You don't have video cameras to check like they did at that day care.

Does Bernie get to walk out after 2 weeks scamming me of his $300,000 debt?

At first I thought we could deal with this like child abuse, if a doctor sees evidence of abuse we report it, etc. But then I realized -- so then why would a slave owner who beats the slaves get a doctor? The way the law is now the slave owner has a vested interest to see that the slave lives. It will cost him much more legally and financially if he dies, so he would bring in a doctor and do whatever it takes. But if we did the law like child abuse there is no way that slave sees a doctor. All the law would do would be to encourage a cover up.

In the end it is my word against a convicted felons word who has a huge financial incentive to lie. Also, suppose I had a few other slaves, friends and family members and I was able to coerce them to give a testimony exonerating me. The slave would have no chance in any court.

But what about laws regulating sweatshops, why don't they apply to slaves? The slave belongs to the master, hence the master has a vested interest in the health and welfare. If the slave loses a leg the master winds up with a slave with one leg. If a sweatshop worker loses a leg they get replaced with a worker with two legs.

awareness · 03-08-2017, 08:19 AM

Okay bro Ohio, now you've struck a nerve. I had to stop and think, and take internal inventory, to see and root out any racism that may still be lurking down in there. (Like leaving the local church and not being able to root it all out of you).

And yes you are right. I guess I do have a misanthropic streak. All humans, including myself, are disappointing to me. But they're good for laughs.

And actually, I find that I like most of them, when I meet them, and get to know them. I have no trouble loving all kinds ; all genders, ethnicities, colors, ages, and religions (or lack thereof). And no trouble pissing them off too, much too frequently ... thanks to their lunacy.

But you've got to admit that, people are crazy. There's lots wrong with them. And me too. Twain was right -- he hit a nerve too -- when he said something like "I don't believe in evolution. Man devolved. Into the lowest form of animal on the earth." Maybe, you might say, that's an equal opportunity racist, or call it something like that. And by the way, I've noticed that you really dislike my attacks on Christianity, like Christianity is a race. I admit I've never looked at it that way. Is the what you mean when you ask: "Don't you see?"

But on a positive note. No wonder we wish for the New Heaven (what's wrong with this one) and New Earth (lots wrong here, and a new one would be great). I wonder about race then, in the New Places. Do angels come in different colors? Are there beautiful black angels? Or are they all white? Why the preference for white angels? What's that all about? Perhaps that's a strong argument for the possibility that all the authors of the books of the Bible were of the white race ... or at least an indicator worth looking into. I wonder if white supremacists point that out, that, "all" angels are white, to support their views??? My problem is, that I wonder too much.

zeek · 03-08-2017, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, turning a blind eye, not thinking this through, giving unrighteousness a pass. OK you guys (Zeek, Awareness, and OBW) have caused me to reassess my position. Now I have a question, I am having a harder time thinking this through than you apparently have.

I didn't say you hadn't thought it through.

Quote:

Now according to you and Awareness and OBW it is OK if this is voluntary, temporary, and not some kind of racist practice.

I didn't say that either.

The principle that I am applying came out of the Enlightenment that informed the founders of the USA and led to the abolition of slavery. It was summarized by Kant this way: human beings are to be treated as ends and never as means only. In other words, their freedom and rights are to be respected and their agreement to be sought in any conflict. Kant called this principle the "categorical imperative." Any economic arrangement, whether it is called slavery or something else, is immoral.

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't say you hadn't thought it through.

I didn't say that either.

The principle that I am applying came out of the Enlightenment that informed the founders of the USA and led to the abolition of slavery. It was summarized by Kant this way: human beings are to be treated as ends and never as means only. In other words, their freedom and rights are to be respected and their agreement to be sought in any conflict. Kant called this principle the "categorical imperative." Any economic arrangement, whether it is called slavery or something else, is immoral.

That is great but illegal immigrants, prison labor and sweatshop workers are an economic arrangement that treat them as a means only. Which has been a major thesis of mine in this thread.

Also I dispute the claim that slavery has to, by definition, only view people as a means. Jesus and Schindler are two excellent examples where that is not true, and if I knew history better I'm sure I could give more examples as well. Who would "love my master and refuse to go free" if they had only been treated as a means to an end?

You have claimed that it is evil for a father to sell his daughter into slavery. But what you haven't discussed is the context. Was it a great depression like what we saw with the movie Seabiscuit where the jockey had been sold by parents who could no longer afford to raise him? Was it like the slavery that the Jews were under in Egypt where Moses' parents put him in a basket. They didn't even sell him, they gave him away. Was it like the famine in China described in the book the Good Earth where people were resorting to cannibalism? Of course selling your daughter is evil and would be a response to an evil situation. How about the people that were bought from the Nazis who were in a German concentration camp? If you are going to die and the only option you have to save your daughters life is to sell her to Schindler, then you sell her.

awareness · 03-08-2017, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNP

But I do have this question and I hope you will help me with it ...

The three Amigo's can't address your cry for help. Considering your Madoff post methinks you need to seek the right professional help ; like how to learn how to make a point.

OBW · 03-08-2017, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's suppose I paid $300,000 to redeem a debt for someone who is selling themselves into slavery for 6 years. Let's say they were like Bernie Madoff, caught for fraud, or they lost it playing poker, or they were a thief.

Now according to you and Awareness and OBW it is OK if this is voluntary, temporary, and not some kind of racist practice.

That is a blatant lie. I never said any such thing. Your penchant for misrepresentation is too much.

I said that Schindler "purchased" the particular persons from concentration camps for the purpose of keeping them alive. The truth is that they were never slaves. They were employees. The nearest thing to "purchase" that he did was bribes to keep them there in the Krakow area working for him.

the alternative for those people was death.

You want to call it slavery. It is your determination to read slavery over it that makes your case so weak. He paid bribes to keep his Jewish workers from deportation (from Poland) to the concentration camps. But they were never slaves.

Try again.

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

My general thoughts on what is recorded in the OT and NT concerning slaves is that the OT seemed to clearly consider slavery something that should be handled righteously and that it was only as permanent as the slave accepted.

I understand this to mean "temporary" and "voluntary". Did I misrepresent you?

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

"Biblically regulated slavery" might be better than unregulated slavery. That doesn't make it an acceptable standard. For example per Exodus 21:20 “Sometimes people beat their slaves. If the slave dies after being beaten, the killer must be punished. 21 But if the slave gets up after a few days, then the master will not be punished. That is because someone paid their money for the slave, and the slave belongs to them."
Since you find Biblically regulated slavery acceptable, it's OK with you if someone owns another person and beats him or her within an inch of their life. I disagree. That regulation is cruel and wrong.

So then this is cruel and wrong. On the other hand if I pay your debt in exchange for a few years of your working for me and then you falsely accuse me of beating you that also would be wrong. Who is going to pay off anyone's debt?

So that leaves us with prison. Do you think sending someone to prison for 10 years for robbing a 7/11 and taking $1,000 is a better solution?

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Thy kingdom come ... so that I can beat slaves and buy daughters.

So then what is the solution? If I buy a slave by paying off their debt and they falsely accuse me of beating them they could scam me out of the payment. Who would pay the debt if that was the risk?

Are you advocating prison? A person robs $1,000 from a 7/11 they should go to prison for 10 years? Is that your solution?

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

The Lord had different rules for Israelites and foreigners. It was OK with the Lord if Israelites were cruel masters to foreigners. In Exodus the Lord permits owning Israelite slaves too.

The US has different laws for US citizens and illegal aliens. So what?

Ohio · 03-08-2017, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Well that's not racism. But I did get kicked off a local forum about between the rivers for exposing my father as an unapologetic racist. Apparently it struck a nerve. Racism was rampant in betwixt the rivers. They let blacks come in and work, but woe to them if they didn't leave by nightfall. My daddy fit right in.

Now I understand.

You're the MOTA.

Only you can call people racists.

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Intention counts. Murder never occurs without it. According to the story, Schindler purchased those people in order to free them from a death sentence. Thus, his intention was the opposite of slavery. It was an act of compassion.

There are no slave traders in Israel according to the Biblical regulation. The sale into slavery is voluntary, the intention is to pay the person's debt. The person buying the slave is freeing them from debt. It can be seen as an act of compassion. So are you saying that this version of slavery is the "opposite" of the slavery that you are calling evil?

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Whether I have the solution to it or not, or whether there even is a solution, slavery is wrong.

This is like the pharisees condemning Jesus for violating the Sabbath rest. He asked, if you have a cow that falls into a pit on the Sabbath who doesn't pull it out? We have 800 million people who have fallen into a pit and your response is that we are wrong. You aren't going to pull them out, you aren't going to tell us how to help them, but what we are doing is wrong.

Slavery in the Bible is clearly designed to help pull people up out of debt. If you have a better solution fine, but condemning us for doing something to help because it violates your sensibilities. Wow. 800 million in crushing oppressive poverty doesn't violate your sensibilities? But helping them does!

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

You are conflating physical human slavery with metaphysical spiritual slavery. They are two different things.

I define slavery as the purchase of a human being. Now in my mind you can purchase them with dollars, or gold, or oil, or some other substance of value. I personally don't know of anything more valuable than the Lord's blood. But go ahead, explain the difference between the Lord purchasing us with his blood, Schindler purchasing the Jews with German marks, and a Southern Plantation owner purchasing a slave with another form of currency?

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

The three Amigo's can't address your cry for help.

Just so I understand correctly, you disagree with Biblically regulated slavery because it doesn't condemn beating a slave, only if you beat a slave to death. In that case it is a crime with a penalty.

At the risk of being called a "blatant liar" by OBW, as I understand it the Biblically regulated slavery is condemned by the three amigos because it sanctions beating slaves (and for other reasons as well).

So I point out that the way the law is written the slave owner is fully motivated, at any cost, to keep their slaves alive. Whereas if you were to make beating illegal you create two new issues. Will slave owners still hire doctors to treat an injured slave knowing that they would then be convicted of a crime? Would a slave be able to win a case in court if they accused the master of beating them? Would slaves (thieves, gamblers, scam artists) use a false accusation of beating to defraud slave owners?

So according to you there is no answer to these questions. The three amigos have set themselves up in Moses seat, condemning everyone else yet will not lift one finger to help or respond to those in need?

23 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat: 3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. 4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens [a]and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.

zeek · 03-08-2017, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The US has different laws for US citizens and illegal aliens. So what?

When is cruelty justifiable?

zeek · 03-08-2017, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is like the pharisees condemning Jesus for violating the Sabbath rest. He asked, if you have a cow that falls into a pit on the Sabbath who doesn't pull it out? We have 800 million people who have fallen into a pit and your response is that we are wrong. You aren't going to pull them out, you aren't going to tell us how to help them, but what we are doing is wrong.

Slavery in the Bible is clearly designed to help pull people up out of debt. If you have a better solution fine, but condemning us for doing something to help because it violates your sensibilities. Wow. 800 million in crushing oppressive poverty doesn't violate your sensibilities? But helping them does!

Are you flaming out? You stopped making any sense several posts back.

OBW · 03-08-2017, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I understand this to mean "temporary" and "voluntary". Did I misrepresent you?

Yes you most certainly did. You are making a strong case for finding yourself to be either an idiot, or evil and conniving. Or too lazy to read more than two sentences as being connected. You treat my words just like Lee did the Bible. Fortune cookies with no context that you can make into whatever you want them to be. Keep it up and you will succeed.

I was not talking about what kind of slavery should be acceptable. I was noting that the Bible, as written, did allow for certain types of slavery, but that it was not without restriction. And it would appear that the additional restrictions that would cause us to discover that we shouldn't have slavery at all were placed into teachings like "love your neighbor as yourself."

Not spelled-out. No simple WWJD formula. Needs more than a good tiptoe through the Bible. It needs experience both knowing and living the Bible.

awareness · 03-08-2017, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then what is the solution? If I buy a slave by paying off their debt and they falsely accuse me of beating them they could scam me out of the payment. Who would pay the debt if that was the risk?

Are you advocating prison? A person robs $1,000 from a 7/11 they should go to prison for 10 years? Is that your solution?

These fictitious scenarios don't really apply to slavery. You're just digging your hole deeper. And slandering God by branding Him with slavery.

zeek · 03-08-2017, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just so I understand correctly, you disagree with Biblically regulated slavery because it doesn't condemn beating a slave, only if you beat a slave to death. In that case it is a crime with a penalty.

At the risk of being called a "blatant liar" by OBW, as I understand it the Biblically regulated slavery is condemned by the three amigos because it sanctions beating slaves (and for other reasons as well).

So I point out that the way the law is written the slave owner is fully motivated, at any cost, to keep their slaves alive. Whereas if you were to make beating illegal you create two new issues. Will slave owners still hire doctors to treat an injured slave knowing that they would then be convicted of a crime? Would a slave be able to win a case in court if they accused the master of beating them? Would slaves (thieves, gamblers, scam artists) use a false accusation of beating to defraud slave owners?

So according to you there is no answer to these questions. The three amigos have set themselves up in Moses seat, condemning everyone else yet will not lift one finger to help or respond to those in need?

23 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat: 3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. 4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens [a]and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.

Get up Harold! You're sitting in Moses' seat!

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

When is cruelty justifiable?

People of this country have invested in it, fought and died for it, paid taxes for it. Therefore it is reasonable that citizenship, which has cost them a lot, also has some benefits. There is nothing cruel about that.

If you are not a citizen of this country then presumably you have your own country. No one is stopping you from investing in your country, fighting and dying for your country, paying taxes for it and treasuring the citizenship in your country. There is nothing cruel about that.

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 05:30 PM

Unanswered questions

Awareness —

March 8

Post #111 — Will slave owners still hire doctors to treat an injured slave knowing that they would then be convicted of a crime? Would a slave be able to win a case in court if they accused the master of beating them? Would slaves (thieves, gamblers, scam artists) use a false accusation of beating to defraud slave owners?

Post #110 — I personally don't know of anything more valuable than the Lord's blood. But go ahead, explain the difference between the Lord purchasing us with his blood, Schindler purchasing the Jews with German marks, and a Southern Plantation owner purchasing a slave with another form of currency.

Post #105 — So then what is the solution? If I buy a slave by paying off their debt and they falsely accuse me of beating them they could scam me out of the payment. Who would pay the debt if that was the risk?

Are you advocating prison? A person robs $1,000 from a 7/11 they should go to prison for 10 years? Is that your solution?

Zeek —

March 8

Post #108 — The sale into slavery is voluntary, the intention is to pay the person's debt. The person buying the slave is freeing them from debt. It can be seen as an act of compassion. So are you saying that this version of slavery is the "opposite" of the slavery that you are calling evil?

Post #106 — The US has different laws for US citizens and illegal aliens. So what?

Post #104 — Do you think sending someone to prison for 10 years for robbing a 7/11 and taking $1,000 is a better solution?

Post #97 — Does Bernie get to walk out after 2 weeks scamming me of his $300,000 debt?

March 7

Post #87 — Where is the moral reform?

You are faultfinders with God and yet refuse to answer the most basic of questions. You try to condemn the Bible to justify yourself.

awareness · 03-08-2017, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just so I understand correctly, you disagree with Biblically regulated slavery because it doesn't condemn beating a slave, only if you beat a slave to death. In that case it is a crime with a penalty.

At the risk of being called a "blatant liar" by OBW, as I understand it the Biblically regulated slavery is condemned by the three amigos because it sanctions beating slaves (and for other reasons as well).

So I point out that the way the law is written the slave owner is fully motivated, at any cost, to keep their slaves alive. Whereas if you were to make beating illegal you create two new issues. Will slave owners still hire doctors to treat an injured slave knowing that they would then be convicted of a crime? Would a slave be able to win a case in court if they accused the master of beating them? Would slaves (thieves, gamblers, scam artists) use a false accusation of beating to defraud slave owners?

So according to you there is no answer to these questions. The three amigos have set themselves up in Moses seat, condemning everyone else yet will not lift one finger to help or respond to those in need?

23 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat: 3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. 4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens [a]and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.

Bro ZNP, no offense meant, but I think taking your posts seriously cheats the reader out of a lot of laughs.

ZNPaaneah · 03-08-2017, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes you most certainly did. You are making a strong case for finding yourself to be either an idiot, or evil and conniving. Or too lazy to read more than two sentences as being connected. You treat my words just like Lee did the Bible. Fortune cookies with no context that you can make into whatever you want them to be. Keep it up and you will succeed.

I was not talking about what kind of slavery should be acceptable. I was noting that the Bible, as written, did allow for certain types of slavery, but that it was not without restriction. And it would appear that the additional restrictions that would cause us to discover that we shouldn't have slavery at all were placed into teachings like "love your neighbor as yourself."

Not spelled-out. No simple WWJD formula. Needs more than a good tiptoe through the Bible. It needs experience both knowing and living the Bible.

You said that slavery in the Bible was "only as permanent as the slave accepted"

Now any reasonable person would see that as meaning it was voluntary on the slave's part and temporary. If you read the Bible it is the person who sells themself into slavery to pay a debt, hence it is reasonable to conclude that Biblical slavery is voluntary. It is also for a period of time relative to the debt to be paid, hence it is also reasonable to conclude that Biblically regulated slavery is temporary.

The only misunderstanding I can see is in reading and responding to your posts at all. You slander people with terms like "idiot", "conniving", "evil" and "lazy". How this is not viewed as an ad hominem attack I have no idea. Why your posts are permitted I also have no idea.

zeek · 03-08-2017, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Zeek —

March 8

Quote:

Post #108 — The sale into slavery is voluntary, the intention is to pay the person's debt. The person buying the slave is freeing them from debt. It can be seen as an act of compassion. So are you saying that this version of slavery is the "opposite" of the slavery that you are calling evil?

The enslavement of prisoners of war and foreigners purchased by Israelites was not voluntary.

Quote:

Post #106 — The US has different laws for US citizens and illegal aliens. So what?

The USA is a fallible nation-state not the God of universal justice before whom all are equal.

Quote:

Post #104 — Do you think sending someone to prison for 10 years for robbing a 7/11 and taking $1,000 is a better solution?

There are not enough details and too many possibilities in hypotheticals like this.

Quote:

Post #97 — Does Bernie get to walk out after 2 weeks scamming me of his $300,000 debt?

No. Beat him so he can't get up for a few days, sell his children and slay a bull on your temple altar for good measure and all will be right for your Old Testament soul.

Quote:

Post #87 — Where is the moral reform?

Jesus was a sower of seeds. He sowed an ethical revolution that has taken two millennia to reach this point and is still far from complete. Don't lose heart. As MLK said “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

Quote:

You are faultfinders with God and yet refuse to answer the most basic of questions. You try to condemn the Bible to justify yourself.

It's not about finding fault to me. It's about the evolution of the conception of God and ethics throughout history. I don't see how condemning the Bible would justify me. That's your strange idea. It makes no sense to me.

ZNPaaneah · 03-09-2017, 05:40 AM

Slavery was a way to pay off debt. Often this debt was incurred as a result of crime. If you steal something and are caught you owe 5xs what you stole. So then, if a person was caught stealing $1,000 they would owe $5,000. If they didn't have it they would be sold to pay this debt. Perhaps 6 months of labor.

The Prison system is supposed to be a more humane way of rehabilitating criminals. At least according to Awareness we have done away with this slavery system because we are now more humane and enlightened than the Bible was.

Within 1 year of release 56.7 percent of prisoners are arrested again. 67.8 percent within 3 years and 76.6 percent within 5 years. You cannot assume that of those not arrested none of them have returned to crime, only that they haven’t been caught. Also, remember, 10,000 innocent people are convicted each year. So, some of those being released each year were not criminals to begin with. Also the life expectancy of a felon is 55 years, about 20 years less than a non felon. What we see is that the age of felons peaks around 38 and begins to drop off precipitously after that. It may very well be that much of that drop off is not due to “rehabilitation” but rather to death.

Now this is our more humane, enlightened approach to criminals?

Instead of being locked away surrounded by people who only know how to be criminals without any real job training or network building in a community what would happen if that criminal served a sentence as a “slave” working in their community?

1. The victim of their crime would be reimbursed when their services were purchased. In our current system there are two courts, criminal court does not reimburse the victim and what is the point of going to civil court if the person is poor. So without any dispute the Bible's system is far more considerate of victims.
2. The taxpayer would not have to pay the $50,000 a year average cost per prisoner. Again, without dispute the Bible's system is far more considerate of the citizens of the society.
3. This person would get years of real job training, real network building in a job that people need. When his time is up it is very likely that the person who had been employing him for that time would continue to.
4. It is very likely that their transition back into society would be much simpler, less traumatic and with less stigma. People would know him, he has a job, he has a support network. That to me, seems clearly a better option for the criminal.

Now obviously there must be losers in this scenario and there are. Right now each prisoner is worth $25,000 to the prison industrial complex. This supports jobs, lots of them, and the communities in which they live.

Also, the US prison system very clearly proves one thing. 30% of black males are in prison, 0.45% of whites are in prison. So either this is proof that the racist, bigots who justified slavery due to racial differences are correct, or it proves that the racist bigots who profited from slavery and justified slavery have moved into a new profession.

Zeek has made it clear that slavery is always wrong. So I would ask him if the US prison system is a better solution to crime?

Imagine we had a voluntary system. It would be like the Army corp of engineers. You don't go to war, you work on a civil engineering project like roads, dams, forest fires, snow plowing, landfills, etc. There is a standard pay that is scaled based on training. There are also guidelines so a first time offender for a violent crime couldn't get more than 10 years, etc. The judge offers the two options at sentencing. You can go to prison for 10 years, or you can work on this crew for 6 years and 4 months to pay off the debt. The cost to the taxpayer for the work option could be $10,000 per year instead of the $50,000 per year for the prison option.

zeek · 03-09-2017, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Slavery was a way to pay off debt. Often this debt was incurred as a result of crime. If you steal something and are caught you owe 5xs what you stole. So then, if a person was caught stealing $1,000 they would owe $5,000. If they didn't have it they would be sold to pay this debt. Perhaps 6 months of labor.

The Prison system is supposed to be a more humane way of rehabilitating criminals. At least according to Awareness we have done away with this slavery system because we are now more humane and enlightened than the Bible was.

Within 1 year of release 56.7 percent of prisoners are arrested again. 67.8 percent within 3 years and 76.6 percent within 5 years. You cannot assume that of those not arrested none of them have returned to crime, only that they haven’t been caught. Also, remember, 10,000 innocent people are convicted each year. So, some of those being released each year were not criminals to begin with. Also the life expectancy of a felon is 55 years, about 20 years less than a non felon. What we see is that the age of felons peaks around 38 and begins to drop off precipitously after that. It may very well be that much of that drop off is not due to “rehabilitation” but rather to death.

Now this is our more humane, enlightened approach to criminals?

Instead of being locked away surrounded by people who only know how to be criminals without any real job training or network building in a community what would happen if that criminal served a sentence as a “slave” working in their community?

1. The victim of their crime would be reimbursed when their services were purchased. In our current system there are two courts, criminal court does not reimburse the victim and what is the point of going to civil court if the person is poor. So without any dispute the Bible's system is far more considerate of victims.
2. The taxpayer would not have to pay the $50,000 a year average cost per prisoner. Again, without dispute the Bible's system is far more considerate of the citizens of the society.
3. This person would get years of real job training, real network building in a job that people need. When his time is up it is very likely that the person who had been employing him for that time would continue to.
4. It is very likely that their transition back into society would be much simpler, less traumatic and with less stigma. People would know him, he has a job, he has a support network. That to me, seems clearly a better option for the criminal.

Now obviously there must be losers in this scenario and there are. Right now each prisoner is worth $25,000 to the prison industrial complex. This supports jobs, lots of them, and the communities in which they live.

Also, the US prison system very clearly proves one thing. 30% of black males are in prison, 0.45% of whites are in prison. So either this is proof that the racist, bigots who justified slavery due to racial differences are correct, or it proves that the racist bigots who profited from slavery and justified slavery have moved into a new profession.

Zeek has made it clear that slavery is always wrong. So I would ask him if the US prison system is a better solution to crime?

Imagine we had a voluntary system. It would be like the Army corp of engineers. You don't go to war, you work on a civil engineering project like roads, dams, forest fires, snow plowing, landfills, etc. There is a standard pay that is scaled based on training. There are also guidelines so a first time offender for a violent crime couldn't get more than 10 years, etc. The judge offers the two options at sentencing. You can go to prison for 10 years, or you can work on this crew for 6 years and 4 months to pay off the debt. The cost to the taxpayer for the work option could be $10,000 per year instead of the $50,000 per year for the prison option.

I can think of numerous way the criminal justice system can be improved. Bringing back slavery isn't one of them.

awareness · 03-09-2017, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The only misunderstanding I can see is in reading and responding to your posts at all. You slander people with terms like "idiot", "conniving", "evil" and "lazy". How this is not viewed as an ad hominem attack I have no idea. Why your posts are permitted I also have no idea.

Okay, I'm going to draw the line on personal attacks. As I see it we're allowed to call a post stupid or idiotic, but not the poster proper.

That will hopefully motivate the poster not to say stupid stuff.

Also, if a post or thread is just completely off the wall stupid, like bacteria in the Bible, it will be deleted. That way other posters won't be motivated to call the poster stupid and idiotic.

In short, if you act stupid you invite being called stupid. I do it a lot, and can't hold it against anyone for calling me stupid. I can't complain, cuz I earn it.

Still, let's try to speak of the post, not the poster. We all say stupid things some times ... me more than most (like white angels).

This thread, for example, I thought was stupid when it was started. So I should have just posted one post saying something like "This is stupid," and let it be at that, and not encouraged it any further. And certainly not calling the poster stupid.

Sorry guys, I've got to man up as a moderator, but not so much as to kill our discussions ... and btw, our fun. Can't we all just get along?

zeek · 03-09-2017, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, I'm going to draw the line on personal attacks. As I see it we're allowed to call a post stupid or idiotic, but not the poster proper.

That will hopefully motivate the poster not to say stupid stuff.

Also, if a post or thread is just completely off the wall stupid, like bacteria in the Bible, it will be deleted. That way other posters won't be motivated to call the poster stupid and idiotic.

In short, if you act stupid you invite being called stupid. I do it a lot, and can't hold it against anyone for calling me stupid. I can't complain, cuz I earn it.

Still, let's try to speak of the post, not the poster. We all say stupid things some times ... me more than most (like white angels).

This thread, for example, I thought was stupid when it was started. So I should have just posted one post saying something like "This is stupid," and let it be at that, and not encouraged it any further. And certainly not calling the poster stupid.

Sorry guys, I've got to man up as a moderator, but not so much as to kill our discussions ... and btw, our fun. Can't we all just get along?

Stupid moderator.

Ohio · 03-09-2017, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, I'm going to draw the line on personal attacks. As I see it we're allowed to call a post stupid or idiotic, but not the poster proper.

That will hopefully motivate the poster not to say stupid stuff.

Also, if a post or thread is just completely off the wall stupid, like bacteria in the Bible, it will be deleted. That way other posters won't be motivated to call the poster stupid and idiotic.

In short, if you act stupid you invite being called stupid. I do it a lot, and can't hold it against anyone for calling me stupid. I can't complain, cuz I earn it.

Still, let's try to speak of the post, not the poster. We all say stupid things some times ... me more than most (like white angels).

This thread, for example, I thought was stupid when it was started. So I should have just posted one post saying something like "This is stupid," and let it be at that, and not encouraged it any further. And certainly not calling the poster stupid.

Sorry guys, I've got to man up as a moderator, but not so much as to kill our discussions ... and btw, our fun. Can't we all just get along?

What was so stupid about "bacteria in the Bible." I thought ZNP had some good ideas.

And who is acting stupid? These are just ideas that are posted.

I happen to think liberalism is more than stupid, in fact it is so idiotic and hypocritical, it borders on mental illness. (All of Red State America feels that way.)

Yet you espouse it wholeheartedly. You also reject what is recorded in the Bible. What shall others do?

Having said that, zeek is constantly rude and condescending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Stupid moderator.)

He is even rubbing off on OBW, who insults those he disagrees with. About everything.

ZNPaaneah · 03-09-2017, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I can think of numerous way the criminal justice system can be improved. Bringing back slavery isn't one of them.

Well, don't keep us in suspense, what are they?

zeek · 03-09-2017, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What was so stupid about "bacteria in the Bible." I thought ZNP had some good ideas.

And who is acting stupid? These are just ideas that are posted.

I happen to think liberalism is more than stupid, in fact it is so idiotic and hypocritical, it borders on mental illness. (All of Red State America feels that way.)

Yet you espouse it wholeheartedly. You also reject what is recorded in the Bible. What shall others do?

Having said that, zeek is constantly rude and condescending.

He is even rubbing off on OBW, who insults those he disagrees with. About everything.

That was a joke which would be obvious were you not biased. What's wrong, man? Lost your sense of humor?

You like to dish out abuse. But, as several posters here have observed, you have a habit of taking things personally when no personal attack is intended.

"...constantly rude and condescending" is obviously an exaggeration. Please point out to me when you think I'm doing that and we can examine what I said to see if it is my rude condescension or your paranoia.

awareness · 03-09-2017, 08:02 AM

Okay I think this thread has run it's course. I think we all get the intended point of the OP ; that sweatshops are worse than Biblically regulated slavery.

Okay, but I must say, both are bad.

That said, I'm asking the person that started this thread to lock it. I would do it, but want to provide the chance for a closing statement. Let's move on.

I'll start a thread dealing with this matter that more relates to us exLCer. Prolly later today. This squirrel needs to gather nuts for the winter today.

zeek · 03-09-2017, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, don't keep us in suspense, what are they?

What's the point? You like to spin out maniacal schemes ad nauseum. Do you think you're proving anything? Hypotheticals that will never be tested are a waste of time. Science should have taught you that.

Ohio · 03-09-2017, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

That was a joke which would be obvious were you not biased. What's wrong, man? Lost your sense of humor?

You like to dish out abuse. But, as several posters here have observed, you have a habit of taking things personally when no personal attack is intended.

"...constantly rude and condescending" is obviously an exaggeration. Please point out to me when you think I'm doing that and we can examine what I said to see if it is my rude condescension or your paranoia.

It says a whole lot about a person who's only form of entertainment must be at the expense of others. What might have been a joke, if spoken in private, is not a joke when spoken to all.

I abuse no one. I only point out bad ideas. Liberalism is one of them. Attacking the credibility of God, the Bible, and all things Christian is another bad idea.

You have been on me ever since I used scripture to point out the error of your ways. I find it hard to believe, observing your lack of social graces, that you are a state employee serving the public. What would your superiors think of some of your postings?

ZNPaaneah · 03-09-2017, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

That was a joke which would be obvious were you not biased. What's wrong, man? Lost your sense of humor?

You like to dish out abuse. But, as several posters here have observed, you have a habit of taking things personally when no personal attack is intended.

"...constantly rude and condescending" is obviously an exaggeration. Please point out to me when you think I'm doing that and we can examine what I said to see if it is my rude condescension or your paranoia.

It is obvious to me that you and Awareness are merely trying to joke around a little, but it is hard for everyone to pick that up with posts. I think you rub Ohio the wrong way for some reason and it is obvious that I rub OBW the wrong way.

ZNPaaneah · 03-09-2017, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay I think this thread has run it's course. I think we all get the intended point of the OP ; that sweatshops are worse than Biblically regulated slavery.

Okay, but I must say, both are bad.

That said, I'm asking the person that started this thread to lock it. I would do it, but want to provide the chance for a closing statement. Let's move on.

I'll start a thread dealing with this matter that more relates to us exLCer. Prolly later today. This squirrel needs to gather nuts for the winter today.

In conclusion Slavery in the Bible is a very controversial topic, so controversial that many people cannot discuss it in a civil and reasonable way. Perhaps they have been too influenced by the Liberal media going after the HUD Secretary or on the other hand perhaps they have been too influenced by Fox news. Hard to say.

That said we did identify a few key points concerning Biblical slavery that is contrary to most other forms:

1. Slavery in the Bible for the most part is voluntary. This may not apply to POW's, but then this thread got hustled to a close before we could go there.

2. The Bible penalizes a slave master that beats the slave to death but does not penalize them for beating a slave. On the surface this appears to be barbaric. However, no one was able to figure out how you would enforce a law against beating. Also, the effect of the Bible's law is that if a slave did get injured they would do everything in their power to see that the slave recovered, whereas if beating were illegal they would want to cover up any injuries and would be far less likely to call in the doctors. Also, prohibiting beating a slave would open up slave masters to all kinds of frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits as an attempt to get out of their commitment.

3. The most controversial question was whether or not Oskar Schindler's purchase of 1200 Jews to work in his factory during WWII constituted slavery.

4. Another bone of contention was the issue of Jesus' redemption as a fulfillment of this law in the OT.

5. Several brought up intention as a key component of slavery. There is no indication at all that Biblically regulated slavery had an intention of exploitation. On the contrary the system was set up as a way for people to pay off debts. Therefore it could be viewed as compassionate.

6. The thread began with the assertion that man did away with slavery due to enlightened sense of humanity. That assertion was pretty much demolished. It was agreed that slavery is still very much alive and the expoitation of the poor is just as potent as it ever was.

7. This thread moved from slavery to pay debts to slavery as a substitute for the penal system in the US. We didn't even get a chance to discuss this until we were rudely trolled and this has probably influenced the MOTA to close this down. Still it seemed obvious that no one was going to promote our penal system, our treatment of illegal aliens, or our use of sweatshops as examples of enlightened humanism operating on a higher moral plane than the Bible.

awareness · 03-09-2017, 01:13 PM

Thanks ZNP.

03-03-2017, 03:04 PM	#7
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops Awareness: Okay, okay! I get it. The Bible equivocates on the meaning of slavery. And makes it hard to pin down. The problem is that it never forbids it. If it had, the West, being of the Bible, wouldn't have participated in the slave trade. And even more important to me, my cradle religion wouldn't have had any Biblical ground to stand on in their support for slavery. Then maybe the states wouldn't have been divided enough for a civil war to happen, and our first republican president wouldn't have killed the republic. If only the Bible, Jesus, and followers thereafter, had forbidden slavery. They didn't. ". . . the idea of human rights, that is, the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human, began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period."* It took renaissance humanism, not the Bible, to recognize that slavery was/is wrong. * Reference = "History of human rights" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights OK, OK, I get it! Humanism has a higher moral standing than the Bible in your opinion. The problem I have is what do you do today in Cambodia, Bangladesh and other "low cost manufacturing" countries to help these countries pay off national debt, gain foreign currency and raise the standard of living for their people? __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

03-04-2017, 05:00 AM	#13
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops "Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves." (Taken from evilbible.com) I would add that the hypocrisy of being a whitewashed sepulchre full of dead men's bones saying "had we been in the days of Moses we wouldn't have done those things" also ranks up there for the most immoral things a person can do. Today it is too easy to obtain slaves, so easy and "guilt free" that some like this self righteous holier than thou hypocrite on the internet may not even aware how much they have contributed to a slave economy. His clothes are made by slaves, his meat has been packed by slaves, his vegetables have been picked by slaves, his dental lab work may have been done by slaves in prison, federal call centers like the DMV could be manned by prison slaves, we even have prison slaves picking cotton, and of course his tax dollars support the prison system. Yes, the Bible says how much you can beat a slave, which is better than our "free trade" which doesn't. What happens today is that the multinational corporations like Walmart will "subcontract" their work with local factories. In this way they claim "none of their factories have these practices". They have wonderful and safe regulations for all of "their" factories. So, legislators in our congress tried to enact a law saying that they could not sell items made in these unregulated factories (they can still subcontract but have to make sure that the factories they employ uphold the same standards they claim to have). Their was outrage! A loud cry from every corner of the corporate world -- "that would violate free trade". It is hypocrisy, a big sham, a whitewashed sepulchre. Also, I would add that these countries all want these laws and regulations. They are desperate for these jobs and so what the corporations do is play them off of one another, always with the threat that if you can't provide this we'll go to Cambodia, or China, or Indonesia, etc. This is clearly a violation of OT law. In the OT you become a slave because of a debt or because you were a prisoner of war. If you violate the laws in the OT for taking care of slaves the slave goes free. The debt is forgiven or the foreigner gets citizenship. Sex with female slaves -- this is also true in the Bible, but only refers to a man taking a woman as his own or his sons wife. There is no legalized pimping in the Bible which is what this implies. When we refer to the sex trade (legal in many countries but not in the US due to the very strong influence of Christians) we are talking about prostitution. The laws in the Bible are about "mail order brides" which is legal in the US. It is very clear the person is not permitted to traffic the woman he pays for and if he is displeased with her she goes free. Very similar to what would happen with a mail order Russian bride who is later divorced. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

03-04-2017, 11:44 PM	#22
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops The first sweatshop was started by an employer called God in the factory called Earth: Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. All of our human labor stems from this and I doubt that even the worst sweatshop in Asia today could compare to the difficulty Adam and Eve must have had, with no infrastructure, no help, no metals, no tools of any kind, no electricity, etc There is actually nothing biblically wrong about keeping slaves. The Bible is more concerned with how slaves are treated than the practice of slavery itself. There is no command in the bible for "masters to release slaves immediately because slavery is wrong". The idea that to own a person (which is what slavery is) is wrong, is actually not found in the Bible. Ownership is a fundamental way that both capitalism and communism works. Ownership in both cases is in the sense of an employer and an employee, or the government. When we sign a job contract then our employer "owns" us for 8 hours a day or however long it may be. We have to answer to them for where we are if we are not at work on time. We have to ask them permission to take holidays or visit the doctor. So they are our owner. If we owe something to another than they are essentially our "owner" whether it is a mortgage debt, credit card debt , electricity bill etc. The type of slavery the bible is concerned about is slavery to sin/mammon. The bible teaches we are all slaves - either to sin/mammon, or to Christ. As long as one sins no one can claim to be a "free man". Neither can a man who has devoted his life to Christ consider himself a free man.

03-05-2017, 08:50 PM	#34
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops Forget the Bible. The federal anti-slavery laws are better : As Many as 60,000 Detained Immigrants May Have Engaged in Forced Labor for Private Prison Companies http://www.alternet.org/immigration/...ees-claim-they __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

03-06-2017, 12:00 PM	#45
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops So let's sum up a little here. Slavery is not voluntary One major issue raised with Slavery is that it is not voluntary, people are "sold into slavery" against their will. This took place in many ancient and modern civilizations including the United States as recently as 1990 (that we have posted references to on this thread) but no doubt there are cases taking place as well today. Some assume that since the Bible has laws regulating slavery that this includes the ability to sell people. It doesn't. The Bible specifically prohibits the sale of people. You can sell yourself into slavery to pay a debt, that is voluntary. What the Bible refers to as "slavery" is voluntary. Beatings A second major issue raised with Slavery is the unrighteous treatment of slaves including beating and even killing them. This was recorded in Ancient Egypt, in Southern plantations and in modern times. We have recently had people killed who were locked up, against their will, working in Sweatshops in Bangladesh, Cambodia and other countries. They are killed when they protest by the police. They are locked in rooms and beaten by the managers when they try to get a minimum wage. The Bible doesn't prohibit beating, but it does prohibit killing. 900+ people in Bangladesh were killed because they were locked in the factory (to prevent anyone from stealing anything) during a fire. According to the Biblical regulation Bangladesh's debt should have been forgiven as a result of this fire, but it wasn't. It is certainly a worthy concern about Bible sanctioned beatings, but in order to have a credible position one would have to wash their own hands first. 97% of the clothes in the US are made in sweatshops where people are routinely beaten. Many prisoners are used for various federal labor, and they also are beaten. Illegal immigrants pick our food and package our meat and they are beaten. Sexual Abuse This is epidemic in sweatshops on many different levels. It is easy enough to read about, so we don't need to describe this in graphic detail here. The behavior that is common place in slavery in many ancient societies, Southern plantations, sweatshops, and the sex trade were illegal in the Biblically regulated slavery. Sexual abuse was a crime and the result would be that the woman would go free. If she was sold to pay a debt, the debt would be forgiven. Women sold as wives There are also regulations about women sold to be wives. These men are prohibited from selling them to other men, so pimping is not allowed. This is not that different from ancient practices concerning giving gifts for a wife (see Jacob and Isaac). This is still practiced today, even in the US with the practice of mail order brides. Why no answer to the question in Post #28? So far those who are making the biggest objection to the OT laws concerning slavery, Awareness and Zeek have yet to answer a very simple and straightforward question put forward in Post #28. Nor have they given a better solution on how to help the 800+ million people worldwide in desperate poverty. Nor have they disputed that sweatshops today are far more unrighteous than the Biblically regulated slavery of the OT. Nor have they disputed the claim that the Biblically regulated slavery of the OT is the solution that most closely resembles what those in these poor countries are advocating as the best solution to help them. These regulations do not require the developed nations to "lower their standard of living" which is what Awareness advocates. These solutions are not opposed by the vast majority of consumers when they respond to polls on this issue. These regulations are not contrary to any regulations that the large multinationals already embrace. The real problem is that they "subcontract" out these sweatshops so that they are not accountable for their sins. (A sweatshop is defined as any manufacturing practice that violates 2 or more US or UN regulations on factories). Although both Awareness and Zeek have been asked repeatedly to respond to the question in Post #28 they have avoided it saying they don't want to play "tit for tat" or some other similar dodge. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

03-02-2017, 03:52 PM	#1
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops 21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever. 7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. In this thread I would like to open a discussion on the morality of the OT laws concerning Slavery. Some have claimed that today we have been enlightened and understand how immoral slavery is and hence have outlawed it. I would like to examine this claim of moral superiority for today's generation and also the claim of moral turpitude of the Bible. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

03-02-2017, 06:37 PM	#3
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Let's begin with this one since it is probably the strongest case to be made against the morality of the Bible. Clearly the Bible says that the slave is the property of the owner and that the owner can choose to beat the slave as long as they don't kill the person. In Bangladesh workers tried to unionize. The owners of the factory locked the doors and had 30+ men beat them with sticks and chairs. Likewise in Cambodia the workers protested for a minimum wage of $160 per month. They were beaten and shot by police, some killed. For 2 days the capital was like a battleground. Why? Because Cambodia government is terrified these companies like H&M and Walmart will move the factories to some other country. 97% of the clothes in the US are made in these countries. They are called "low cost economies". So unless you know for a fact that your clothes are not made in a sweatshop you should reasonably and logically conclude that they are. I have no problem if you condemn the Bible, but it is hypocritical, because what you are condemning you are also supporting. And worse. What about the fire in Rana Plaza -- it killed 931. Were they punished? According to the Bible they should have been but these companies have a great "out". They sub contract the work, so they don't actually "own" these factories and as a result take no responsibility for them or their conditions. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. In this verse we can see the concept of a minimum wage. The owner is responsible to provide food, clothing and marital rights. Although this is just one type of slave it is still a principle that could be applied to others and is. Owners have a responsibility to provide a certain minimum, and if they don't the slave is free. That is the Bible's law but is not true today in Cambodia or Bangladesh. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

03-03-2017, 11:11 PM	#11
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops Sweatshops - just another example of capitalism working at its best.

03-06-2017, 06:44 PM	#60
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops Here's something I found interesting concerning slavery : What The Bible Really Says About Slavery By Greg Carey [Professor of New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary (PA)] Slavery stands as the single most contested issue in the history of biblical interpretation in the United States. Not only did the nation fracture over slavery, denominations did too. Northern and Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists remained divided until well into the twentieth century; in fact, Southern Baptists still represent the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. What did slavery mean in the biblical world, and how did biblical authors respond to it? Don’t let anybody tell you that biblical slavery was somehow less brutal than slavery in the United States. Without exception, biblical societies were slaveholding societies. The Bible engages remarkably diverse cultures — Ethiopian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman — but in every one of them some people owned the rights to others. Slaveowners possessed not only the slaves’ labor but also their sexual and reproductive capacities. When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not “please” their masters, we’re talking about the sexual use of slaves. Likewise when the Bible spells out the conditions for marrying a slave (see Exodus 21:7-11). The occupations and experiences of slaves varied greatly. Many performed manual labor in horrid conditions, perhaps living only months after beginning their work. Some highly valued slaves attained wealth and status, a possibility reflected in Genesis’ account of Joseph. Perhaps the story of the centurion who highly valued his slave connotes an erotic relationship, likely one-sided (Luke 7:1-10). In all cases the owners’ right to use a slave as the owner sees fit, including the right to punish slaves severely, remain unquestioned. How did people become slaves? Slavery did not accompany a particular racial status, as it eventually did in the United States, but the Hebrew Bible stipulates preferred treatment for Israelite slaves (see Exodus 21:1-11; 25:39-55; Deuteronomy 15:12-18). Crushing debt forced many into slavery, with some people selling themselves and others selling their children. Military conquest contributed greatly to the slave market as well. The Bible does not attempt to hide the presence of slaves. Beware modern translations that use “servant” to cover up slave language. Slaves were ubiquitous in the ancient world. Imagine ancient Rome, where slaves made up between one-third and one-half of the inhabitants — perhaps half a million people! The Senate once considered requiring slaves to wear identifying marks, but they stopped short in the face of a chilling realization: if slaves could recognize one another, what would prevent them from organizing and pillaging the entire city? In the New Testament, Jesus frequently refers to slaves in his parables, the witty stories that marked his most distinctive teaching style. He never addresses slavery as an institution, though unfortunately one of the parables assumes that beating a slave is acceptable (Luke 12:47-48). More controversial is the apostle Paul, often blamed for promoting or condoning slavery. The great African-American theologian Howard Thurman recalled how his illiterate formerly enslaved grandmother would not allow him to read Paul to her. Slave owners, she said, constantly employed Paul’s letters to promote docility among the slaves. However, more recent scholarship suggests that Paul may have resisted — or at least undermined — slavery. Many scholars believe Paul did not compose six of the thirteen letters attributed to him in the New Testament. It so happens that the most restrictive passages regarding slaves occur in those six disputed letters (see Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-4:1; Titus 2:9-10), while the remaining seven letters leave open the possibility that Paul sided with slaves. To interject, I knew of the six disputed books, but never connected the difference in them concerning slavery. So even Paul's letters leave us with ambiguity concerning slavery, if that is, we take all the books attributed to Paul as if they were actually written by Paul, as implied by them being canonized. To continue the quote : One letter calls the slaveowner Philemon to welcome back a certain Onesimus “no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother ... both in the flesh and in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). Is Paul calling for Onesimus to be set free, or simply for his master to receive him with love? Likewise, it strains the imagination that two modern translations of 1 Corinthians 7:21 could vary so greatly, but consider this example. English Standard Version Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. New Revised Standard Version Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. Does Paul encourage slaves to embrace their captivity or to gain their freedom? While we may debate whether Paul encouraged the manumission of Onesimus and other slaves (I think he did) one thing is certain. Some ancient Jews and Christians did resist the practice. The Essenes, likely responsible for our Dead Sea Scrolls, apparently forbade members from owning slaves. The book of Revelation lists slaves among the luxury items that Roman commerce generated by exploiting other societies (18:13). Most touchingly, very ancient documents indicate that some Christians literally sold themselves into slavery to purchase the freedom of others (1 Clement 54:4-5), while some churches collected money to buy slaves’ freedom (Ignatius to Polycarp 4:8-10; Shepherd of Hermas 38.10; 50.8). There’s a simple explanation for nineteenth century debates on slavery and the Bible: the Bible isn’t exactly clear on the subject. If anything, the Bible made it easier for slavery’s advocates than for its opponents. On the other hand, Robert E. Putnam and David E. Campbell suggest that while religion contributed greatly in the motivation of abolitionists, their adversaries would have promoted slavery with or without religion. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

03-07-2017, 05:56 AM	#67
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops Ben Carson just referred to slaves as 'immigrants' Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson referred to slaves as "immigrants" while speaking Monday to department employees. ... "There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less.18 hours ago USA Today Perhaps, but unlike illegal immigrants the slaves had a legal status in the US and have not been threatened with deportation. I wonder why Carson would refer to slaves as immigrants? Technically I guess you could say they had a status as both a slave and an immigrant. Perhaps immigrant is more humanizing. Perhaps he wants the black community to empathize with the immigrant community? Don't know, just wondering. Perhaps Awareness can send him a message that he is conflating the issue and OBW can let him know that these are two unrelated issues. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

03-07-2017, 01:53 PM	#84
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops Z, Yours is a truly dizzying intellect. The house of cards that you build out of Bible verses to create a framework from which you can then declare sinners to be worse than they already are is truly remarkable. Or alternately for the purpose of forcing every situation into the Bible — to what beneficial end I am never sure. But you persist in one crazy word study after another to find what isn't there. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

03-07-2017, 04:57 PM	#86
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops The word sanction can mean permission for an act. In that sense the Bible does sanction slavery. It can also mean approval of an act. There is no verse that suggests the Bible approves of someone selling themself as a slave. In fact there are several verses that suggest this is a curse. That said, the act of Jesus in redeeming us is certainly approved. Therefore this is not a black and white simple yes and no answer. God does not approve of the sin that led to us being sold as slaves. He does approve of the sacrifice of Jesus in buying us out of slavery to sin and death. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

03-08-2017, 08:19 AM	#98
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops Okay bro Ohio, now you've struck a nerve. I had to stop and think, and take internal inventory, to see and root out any racism that may still be lurking down in there. (Like leaving the local church and not being able to root it all out of you). And yes you are right. I guess I do have a misanthropic streak. All humans, including myself, are disappointing to me. But they're good for laughs. And actually, I find that I like most of them, when I meet them, and get to know them. I have no trouble loving all kinds ; all genders, ethnicities, colors, ages, and religions (or lack thereof). And no trouble pissing them off too, much too frequently ... thanks to their lunacy. But you've got to admit that, people are crazy. There's lots wrong with them. And me too. Twain was right -- he hit a nerve too -- when he said something like "I don't believe in evolution. Man devolved. Into the lowest form of animal on the earth." Maybe, you might say, that's an equal opportunity racist, or call it something like that. And by the way, I've noticed that you really dislike my attacks on Christianity, like Christianity is a race. I admit I've never looked at it that way. Is the what you mean when you ask: "Don't you see?" But on a positive note. No wonder we wish for the New Heaven (what's wrong with this one) and New Earth (lots wrong here, and a new one would be great). I wonder about race then, in the New Places. Do angels come in different colors? Are there beautiful black angels? Or are they all white? Why the preference for white angels? What's that all about? Perhaps that's a strong argument for the possibility that all the authors of the books of the Bible were of the white race ... or at least an indicator worth looking into. I wonder if white supremacists point that out, that, "all" angels are white, to support their views??? My problem is, that I wonder too much. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

03-08-2017, 05:30 PM	#118
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Unanswered questions Unanswered questions Awareness — March 8 Post #111 — Will slave owners still hire doctors to treat an injured slave knowing that they would then be convicted of a crime? Would a slave be able to win a case in court if they accused the master of beating them? Would slaves (thieves, gamblers, scam artists) use a false accusation of beating to defraud slave owners? Post #110 — I personally don't know of anything more valuable than the Lord's blood. But go ahead, explain the difference between the Lord purchasing us with his blood, Schindler purchasing the Jews with German marks, and a Southern Plantation owner purchasing a slave with another form of currency. Post #105 — So then what is the solution? If I buy a slave by paying off their debt and they falsely accuse me of beating them they could scam me out of the payment. Who would pay the debt if that was the risk? Are you advocating prison? A person robs $1,000 from a 7/11 they should go to prison for 10 years? Is that your solution? Zeek — March 8 Post #108 — The sale into slavery is voluntary, the intention is to pay the person's debt. The person buying the slave is freeing them from debt. It can be seen as an act of compassion. So are you saying that this version of slavery is the "opposite" of the slavery that you are calling evil? Post #106 — The US has different laws for US citizens and illegal aliens. So what? Post #104 — Do you think sending someone to prison for 10 years for robbing a 7/11 and taking $1,000 is a better solution? Post #97 — Does Bernie get to walk out after 2 weeks scamming me of his $300,000 debt? March 7 Post #87 — Where is the moral reform? You are faultfinders with God and yet refuse to answer the most basic of questions. You try to condemn the Bible to justify yourself. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

03-09-2017, 05:40 AM	#122
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Slavery was often a way to deal with criminals Slavery was a way to pay off debt. Often this debt was incurred as a result of crime. If you steal something and are caught you owe 5xs what you stole. So then, if a person was caught stealing $1,000 they would owe $5,000. If they didn't have it they would be sold to pay this debt. Perhaps 6 months of labor. The Prison system is supposed to be a more humane way of rehabilitating criminals. At least according to Awareness we have done away with this slavery system because we are now more humane and enlightened than the Bible was. Within 1 year of release 56.7 percent of prisoners are arrested again. 67.8 percent within 3 years and 76.6 percent within 5 years. You cannot assume that of those not arrested none of them have returned to crime, only that they haven’t been caught. Also, remember, 10,000 innocent people are convicted each year. So, some of those being released each year were not criminals to begin with. Also the life expectancy of a felon is 55 years, about 20 years less than a non felon. What we see is that the age of felons peaks around 38 and begins to drop off precipitously after that. It may very well be that much of that drop off is not due to “rehabilitation” but rather to death. Now this is our more humane, enlightened approach to criminals? Instead of being locked away surrounded by people who only know how to be criminals without any real job training or network building in a community what would happen if that criminal served a sentence as a “slave” working in their community? 1. The victim of their crime would be reimbursed when their services were purchased. In our current system there are two courts, criminal court does not reimburse the victim and what is the point of going to civil court if the person is poor. So without any dispute the Bible's system is far more considerate of victims. 2. The taxpayer would not have to pay the $50,000 a year average cost per prisoner. Again, without dispute the Bible's system is far more considerate of the citizens of the society. 3. This person would get years of real job training, real network building in a job that people need. When his time is up it is very likely that the person who had been employing him for that time would continue to. 4. It is very likely that their transition back into society would be much simpler, less traumatic and with less stigma. People would know him, he has a job, he has a support network. That to me, seems clearly a better option for the criminal. Now obviously there must be losers in this scenario and there are. Right now each prisoner is worth $25,000 to the prison industrial complex. This supports jobs, lots of them, and the communities in which they live. Also, the US prison system very clearly proves one thing. 30% of black males are in prison, 0.45% of whites are in prison. So either this is proof that the racist, bigots who justified slavery due to racial differences are correct, or it proves that the racist bigots who profited from slavery and justified slavery have moved into a new profession. Zeek has made it clear that slavery is always wrong. So I would ask him if the US prison system is a better solution to crime? Imagine we had a voluntary system. It would be like the Army corp of engineers. You don't go to war, you work on a civil engineering project like roads, dams, forest fires, snow plowing, landfills, etc. There is a standard pay that is scaled based on training. There are also guidelines so a first time offender for a violent crime couldn't get more than 10 years, etc. The judge offers the two options at sentencing. You can go to prison for 10 years, or you can work on this crew for 6 years and 4 months to pay off the debt. The cost to the taxpayer for the work option could be $10,000 per year instead of the $50,000 per year for the prison option. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

03-09-2017, 08:02 AM	#129
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops Okay I think this thread has run it's course. I think we all get the intended point of the OP ; that sweatshops are worse than Biblically regulated slavery. Okay, but I must say, both are bad. That said, I'm asking the person that started this thread to lock it. I would do it, but want to provide the chance for a closing statement. Let's move on. I'll start a thread dealing with this matter that more relates to us exLCer. Prolly later today. This squirrel needs to gather nuts for the winter today. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

03-09-2017, 01:13 PM	#134
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Laws concerning Slavery in the Bible vs Sweatshops Thanks ZNP. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.