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? 

Views: 1314

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To me, it's religion's dogmatic view that we should not ask certain questions that is part of the slave condition. Any system of knowledge that tells me not to question something is an asshole system.

This is how I think about it:

Anyone who tells me I should not question something, is telling me not to think...

Anyone who tells me not to think, is trying to do my thinking for me...

Anyone trying to do my thinking for me, is trying to take away my ability to tell when I'm being lied to...

Anyone trying to take that ability away from me, is trying to control my mind...

Anyone trying to control my mind is trying to enslave me...

And anyone trying to enslave me, is an asshole...

Pardon my foul language, but I'm very defensive when it comes to my right to think. Nobody or no thing will will ever get my mind. No God, no government, no political party, etc. The only thing that will get it, is disease and death. Until then, the slaveholders can kiss it...

Kris, I said that because the word in the Greek could mean either slave or indentured servant, the quality of care given to the slave/servant largely determined whether it was bad slavery or a different kind of job.

Then I clearly pointed out the passage that demands good quality of care.  

From there, we were in the middle of a conversation about after it was Karen I believe who essentially said "Owning anyone, indentured servitude or slavery is always wrong".  At that point we progressed to discussing owning people via indentured servitude.  In fact, I even make it crystal clear that was what I had started to discuss by stating "lets focus on this concept of owning people for a short time"  Then you came in and said "indentured servitude is not slavery". We were talking about owning people via indentured servitude at that point, and not about slavery.  Anytime after that when I say slavery, it is for the sake of the word translated to either in the NT, not for the term.  I pretty clearly spell that out that what you read in the NT text as slavery, isn't to be read with modern eyes.  We work with that broad definition I provided about doulos in future references to slavery.

If you had have read the progression, you would not have made this argument, so I stand by my original accusation about your comment.  It could only have come from not having read the progression.  It is all still there in the text.  

I see nothing wrong or senseless with changing your mind.  Honestly, I think people give up far too soon before actually reaching real understanding.

The way you are describing it is as if you had said "military service isn't a kind of indentured servitude". Is that what you meant to say with that first comment? What I jumped on you and have been arguing about is your first comment "Indentured servitude isn't a kind of slavery". 

Okay, Kris, I am going to have to make some retractions. I admit with your last substantial post, I was unable to see what you were getting at and not feeling all that motivated to read what you were saying.

However after getting some feedback from you, I read through it and realized what you were trying to say.

That makes me need to acknowledge the errors I have made. I need to retract the claim that you didn't read the conversation. It is clear to me now that you did read the conversation and were following along. I have had too many conversations where people just didn't read what was written and jumped in on a point and didn't understand its context and am pretty much ready for it to happen in most conversations these days. Perhaps I need to grow a bit more faith in humanity again.

I also see what you are saying about equating indentured servitude with military service and need to admit error and retract the argument that they are unquestionably the same thing. I can only contend that they are similar on principle, that being the one Karen stated about having someone who to controls one's every waking and sleeping moment where anything that is commanded that is legal must be obeyed.

So anyway I apologize for lashing out and expressing unnecessary frustration. I hope this apology eases the legitimate frustration from this and provides some vindication for you. I have discovered through this that you are a very reasonable person, even if you are hard to understand at times, and will weigh anything you have to say with extra care from here on.


Well thanks for being understanding.  I also want to invite you to offer any input you may have on the thread I recently started.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service