I have inadvertently found myself in a debate on Twitter about the differences of the term 'slavery' in the biblical sense and the way that we think of it today. Does anybody have any proof that this word has changed definitions over the past 2000 years?
This is weird John - you commented earlier of a post you wrote that didn't post. As you know, what we post here shows up as emails in our respective accounts, but in checking yours, before I come here to read it first hand, I'm seeing only a portion of your post in my email, rather than the entire post. Something's going on with TA's software.
(Actually, Judas died by hanging or he jumped off a cliff and his belly exploded, depending on which fiction, if any, one chooses to believe.)
I had some posting thing earlier, but I made some clarifications and added some stuff in the 15 min window. Sometimes things pop into mind after I see what it looks like on the blackboard.
That explains everything, I've done that myself. I've also had the window close on me just before I was finished, then copied the post, finished it, and deleted the original.
Prior to the American Civil War, the Bible was used to justify slavery by the slaveholders. It seems to me that not very much distinction was made on what a slave was or was not.
Slavery in any form is a moral abomination. And yes, I as an atheist, have morals, contrary to the beliefs of some religious people who think all morality comes from god.
Oh, it's not always an abomination. The Greeks kept slaves rather than killing them. The slaves were treated well and often became beloved parts of the family. The abomination would have been the alternative: You see, the slaves were often soldiers defeated in battle, and the alternative would have been to kill them so they would not return to fight another day.
Ron, do you believe military service is a moral abomination? If this is following what we have been talking about, the kind of slavery we are talking about in the NT that is not condemned is indentured servitude. I don't see how that is any different than military service.
Also, it is clear that the southern pro-slavery arguments were not the most honest examinations of the texts. They got what they wanted out of them.
We can successfully argue that the Bible seems to have failed to nail down problem areas in history, but really arguing an optimal interference with probable timeline outcomes is a bit difficult given how many directions they can go. And they will use that to say God did what was best and his ways are mysterious.
@Johns Major and Kelly - I knew you two guys had a lot in common, you should get to know each other --
If this is following what we have been talking about, the kind of slavery we are talking about in the NT that is not condemned is indentured servitude.
Indentured servitude isn't a kind of slavery.
Kris, we should not have to repeat ourselves ad nauseum just because people who think they have it all figured out start jumping in the middle of a discussion before reading the points that have already been made.
Indentured servitude is a kind of slavery for doulos.
No, I read. It's still a conflation, especially as it appears in context next to military service.
And just for future reference, don't waste your time typing characterizations such as 'people who think they have it all figured out'. It's presumptuous and inane.
No, you didn't read it and you came in here making a statement that was clearly refuted early on in this conversation thinking you had the conversation at hand all figured out.