|
If all slaves were treated appropiately and correctly... there would be no negative connotation applied to slaves or slavery. But, since many slaves were abused, killed, raped, maimed, etc., which was not in accordance with the bibles regulations, there has been a negative association applied to 'slavery' and 'slaves.'"
- Not_Registered, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who is determining the slavery defined in the bible is 'immoral' and how did they arrive at this conclusion? We have a UN today. Without it, and it some cases with it, but defintely without it there would be dictatorships and the mistreating of people would happen constantly. Is it 'immoral' not to have a UN, or is the UN in place just because without it people would act up and things would get chaotic. Can the same be said about slavery? If conducted properly, by the regulations of the bible, slavery is not 'immoral'."
- Not_Registered, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Many foreign people think capitalism is 'immoral.' I said (and I quote) 'If all slaves were treated appropriately and correctly.' Getting treated not 'good' and 'unjust' doesn’t fall under those regulations."
- Not_Registered, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I never said that slavery should be used, but the slavery defined in the bible is not immoral or wrong. Slavery, when corrupted, as happend in early America leads to great unjustices, but that doesn't make slavery, as the bible defines it, wrong. Communism, in theory, is great."
- Not_Registered, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You focus on the allowed beating of slaves. If slaves are lazy and insubordinate then they need some incentive to work (i.e. a beating). The bible doesn't tell masters they must beat their slaves. It says beating is allowed, being that it is necessary as an incentive to work. In fact, some slaves became slaves voluntarily, and thus were probably effecient workers for their masters. They probably never needed incentive to work because they knew what they were getting in to, thus beatings weren't necessary. Some slaves even chose to stay a slave under their master instead of being set free. Why? Were they sadist or masochist? No, I'm sure they had pleasant relationships with their masters because they did what was asked of them and needed no beatings as incentive."
- Not_Registered, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The bible has restrictions that were there to prevent masters from abusing their slaves. As I have stated, one can look at a child/father relationship and see the same issues arrise as in the slave/master relationship. Fathers are allowed to beat their children, but warned not to abuse this right. Some fathers abuse their children and that is wrong. Does that mean child birth should be illegal. That's a rhetorical question, but a hint for those who don't know the answer: it begins with an N. My father, and many others, raised me in accordance with bible regulations. I was beat, but not abused, when needed. Eventually, I didn't need physical incentive to obey. My father and I have a great relationship as I'm sure many slaves/masters of the day did. Just as some fathers should not be fathers because they abuse the role, some masters (owners of slaves) do the same."
- Not_Registered, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Slavery, as defined in the bible is not wrong. No one has said anything to prove that it is. All people have done so far is reference that beating was allowed, as part of the slavery defined by the bible, in an attempt to equate it altogether to the slavery of early America. If this is not the goal then one must be trying to say that beating someone that wont work as an incentive to work is wrong. No pain to anyone ever (even if necessary). And I thought Christians were the ones with the fluffy beliefs."
- Not_Registered, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I never said slavery wasn't harsh, because, yes, sometimes beatings are necessary if the slave is not obedient. But, sentencing a criminal to life in jail is also harsh, but necessary. But beating an obedient slave just because you despise him is not a disciplinary action. It is an action influenced by hatred alone. This is not the slavery defined in the bible."
- Not_Registered, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wonder how these masters would get their lazy, insubordinate slaves to work ? Maybe I don't have enough faith in the phrase 'pretty please.'"
- Not_Registered, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I agree that IF anyone did not treat their servants/maids with respect then, yes, that would be bad. However, if perhaps only a few treated their servants badly, is that sufficient enough to draw the overall, general conclusion of BAD? The terms 'bondman' and 'bondmaid' (Deuteronomy 15:15 and Leviticus 25) do seem to be referring to actual slaves as a 'possession.' However, though slavery is considered BAD today, back then it was likely considered the norm (a way of life)."
- inquisitive01, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So is our current prison system (depriving one of freedom, prisoners beating other prisoners to death, etc.) considered 'bad' by you?"
- inquisitive01, Internet Infidels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore