Missed the edit window. My first post also makes the usual parochial mistake of concentrating on US slavery. Of course, slavery in South America, Africa and south Asia was also eradicated by committed Christians in pursuit of Christian goals. I concede that on a global scale we also have to thank the Chinese Communist Party for their role in eradicating slavery in China.
Many of our weapons are phyciological in nature, which serve to dehumanize, which tears down the soul in a way that appears to be ‘helping’.
Have you ever talked to officials in such cases, many things go on that really strip down those rights. Yes it’s not the death sentence, but look at the percent of our population that is incarcerated, especially blacks.
Slavery goes on today at a spiritual level.
As there was back then also, going back to the warrior’s code. Yes the didn’t need anti-nuke treaties back then, and nukes were used in war.
This is still very much the case today, and IMHO, absolutely nothing has changed, including our attitude that we are somehow ‘better’ then our ancestors.
IMHO in the opposite direction.
[/quote]
Added on edit: Why was there “an eye for an eye”?
It was not to sanction revenge. It was an early attempt to stop it. That was a time when any slight, real or imagined, large or small, got someone killed. “Eye for an eye” tried to stop that.
[/QUOTE]
The eye for a eye was imposed on a population who didn’t know God, and was given a code instead of personally knowing Him. The code fit their hearts, they were given what they wanted.
My apologies. Wasn’t trying to fault you. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. Perhaps I assumed the point you were making - I’m coming from another board where I’m used to a lot of people just bashing Jesus needlessly.
I did not fully understand the point you were trying to make, but now I do.
That is an interesting idea…and may hold some water. I wonder though if Jesus struggled with that issue, wondering what the “right answer” was…
Part of me thinks about Jesus regularly breaking Jewish law and in the process he makes larger points about flaws of the law. Also, like you said, only the rich owned slaves, and Jesus hung out with the dreggs of society. Perhaps it was wiser to not preach that, as if Jesus was a proponent of non-violence and love, he would not want to have caused a riot. Or again, as stated, the Jewish idea of “transmigration of souls.”
Why do theists pick that god? You’ve got me…I abandoned that god a long time ago. People like to put God in a box so they have someone who likes and hates, approves and disapproves of all the same things they do.
Frankly I don’t think any of us have any idea what God wants (or if God really wants anything) and we’re here to be the best at whatever we do and to leave the world a better place than we found it. Perhaps Jesus’ point was that, should you find yourself in slavery, be the best slave you can be instead of being violent.
Also, slaves are not always mistreated historically - many times they are treated kindly. They are more like live in servants. Instead of being paid, they do not have to worry about housing, food, clothing, etc. That is a type of payment in itself, though I do have a problem with the objectification, sale, and trade of human beings.
I’m meandering now, I’m just not convinced Jesus had no problems with slavery - it was just something he did not speak to one way or the other.
Your point is well taken.
Thank you for that message, Ovija. It was nice of you to reply the way you did.
I think we are on the same page on most of this…me from the perspective of an agnostic who has a lot of respect for the teachings of Jesus…and you from what appears to be a theistic (very rational theistic) position.
In any case, I hope Jesus saw slavery to be the abomination it was.
I ackknowledge that some slaves in places like Egypt and Rome achieved status that few of us can imagine. A favored slave of Cesar, for instance, was not someone even a Senator of Rome would want to mess with; and even the most wealthy and secure Egyptian would think twice before giving any crap to a favored slave of Pharaoh. Those kinds of slaves were highly rewarded and highly prized individuals…and their slave status was more to insure that they would not jump ship for a more lucrative inducement.
But the vast majority of slaves were, no matter how well treated, in a completely horrific situation. They could be bought, sold, separated from loved ones at will…and used as chattels or as sex slaves.
No matter how well slaves were treated…there is never justification for slavery.
My post here merely was to point out that Jesus never spoke out against it…most likely because he was assured by the god he worshipped that it was not an immoral activity. And of course, I wanted to point that out so that I could ask the question:
Why choose this god to be your GOD?
My post here was merely to point out that he told people to divest themselves of their possessions, and explained that you’re not allowed to hit anyone even if they’re in the middle of hitting you. I don’t see how that’s compatible with punching folks out in self-defense, or murdering 'em in cold blood, or kidnapping 'em for a sizable ransom, or whatever; I also don’t see how it’s compatible with owning a slave: you’re not allowed to beat him, and you’re not allowed to resist him if he starts beating you. So how are you going to keep him as a possession, if you were allowed to keep possessions, which you’re not?
If Jesus wanted to condemn slavery…he could have said, “There is something wrong with owning slaves.”
He didn’t.
Hence, my question: Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?
I’ve also offered an explanation: The god he worshipped said there is nothing wrong with slavery.
I doubt if I will be able to reply to any responses for the next week. Gotta go into the hospital for a video EEG tomorrow…something that will probably use up a full week.
Gonna hate the food!
He thought there was something wrong with owning stuff. He said, right before talking about passing a camel through the eye of a needle, that the whole point was to sell all of your possessions and give all the money to charity. He didn’t specifically condemn owning a horse-drawn chariot. He didn’t specifically condemn owning golden bracelets. He likewise didn’t specifically condemn kicking people in the groin or punching them in the throat.
He didn’t condemn any of that stuff because he issued blanket condemnations. He condemned owning chariots and bracelets when he condemned owning worldly possessions. He condemned groin kicks and throat punches when he condemned the use of force even in self-defense. He condemned slavery when he condemned owning worldly possessions and using force even in self-defense. He doesn’t need to specify.
Look, imagine Jesus shows up tomorrow and says that you shouldn’t compete in the Olympics. Does he need to add that you shouldn’t compete in the Olympics as a pole vaulter? Does he then need to add that you shouldn’t compete in the Olympics as a speed skater? Does he then need to address the tricky question of whether you should compete in the Olympics as an epee fencer?
Yeah but dude, giving up worldly possessions is just WACKY. That’s crazy talk. Jesus was obviously just joking. I mean, just look at all those upstanding Christians in cars, with potted plants, refrigerators, computers, and stuff. You can’t tell me that everyone’s got it all wrong! And it’s not like there are whole continents just full of impoverished and needy people or anything. Where is all that charity supposed to go!?
It seems to me that Jesus’ purpose wasn’t to fix the problems in the world, but instead help people prepare for the next world. If one accepts the existence of the afterlife as Jesus taught, then life here is pretty insignificant in comparison with what is to come. So, he seemed to use his teaching to help people find their way into the kingdom of heaven instead of using it to fix up the kingdom of earth. After all, if a slave followed Jesus’ teaching and ended up gaining heaven, and a master didn’t and ‘went the other way’, then who comes out better off?
I wonder if that might have been the source of some of the animosity against Jesus, as people looking for a savior were expecting someone to come in and fix everything wrong with the planet, and instead, he talked about how people should live to store up treasure in heaven. People seem to get pretty bent out of shape when someone they perceive as powerful doesn’t live up to their expectations.
I’m here to tell you that you are not free. You are all slaves. Why ? Because if you are a true Christian – a follower of Christ, a disciple of Jesus, and a servant of the Lord – then you are a slave of God. That’s a good thing.
If you are not a Christian or a Christian in name only (which most of us are at some point in our life), then you are someone else’s slave. You are not free.
Everyone Has a Master
“No one can serve two masters,” the scripture teaches. “He will hate the one and love the other.” Implicit in this statement is that everyone has a master. If you think you have no master, that nobody tells you w7hat to do, then, who really is your master? You! Many people think they’re free because, as they say, “I’m my own boss.”
You Cannot Have Two Masters
Some of us think we can divide our loyalties in this life. After all, that’s what secular society is all about. At any moment you serve the master of choice. When in church or with church people, I serve God. When I’m studying, I serve the school. When I’m working, I serve my company or my superior and so on. Jesus says this is impossible. “No one can serve two masters.” Why? Because, the nature of humanity is to love one thing more than another. This is reflected in several ways such as the ideal of monogamy. Polygamous marriages don’t work because one spouse will be loved more than the others. Every time we make a choice, about anything, we are expressing our devotion to one thing over another.
[[SHORTENED QUOTE]]
Fr. Richard Demetrius Andrews
Perciful, please don’t copy and paste entire columns into a post. Express your point in your own words, and if you have to quote someone, use a relatively short quote and link to the rest. Here are the SDMB guidelines on quotes.
The full text of what Perciful originally posted can be found here: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AndrewsSlave.php.
Sorry, I will read the guidelines.
Um, no. There was no contradiction between evangelising the heathen and enslaving them. Evangelising them was in fact one of the motives for doing so. And it worked, too; they were carried off, separated from their original societies, and force fed Christianity until they or their children became Christians. From a Christian evangelization perspective, slavery was immensely successful.
Part of the justification for enslaving “heathens” was saving their souls; it let the Christians make a profit off of slavery while telling themselves their victims should be grateful for being enslaved. It let them use the “Golden Rule” for justifying slavery, to tell themselves “if I were a black heathen I’d be glad to be taken away from those vile heathens and taught the true faith.” It helped let them dismiss the resistance of the slaves to being enslaved by labeling it ingratitude.
Nonsense. Most people don’t have a master. And no; your boss isn’t your “master”, he or she is your boss. And being a slave of God or anyone else is NOT a good thing.
Wrong again. Even it it was true, in no way does it imply that everyone has a master.
Ah, time for some word games apparently. Trying to equate self determination with a master-slave relationship is ridiculous; they are opposites. And again, “boss” and “master” aren’t the same thing, especially in the context of slavery; not many people who say “I’m my own boss” beat themselves for disobeying themselves, after all.
The writer is trying to equate a huge number of types of relationships that have little to no resemblance to slavery with slavery, just so he can say “we are slaves of God, and that’s good”.
And we can, and most people do. There’s a name for someone without divided loyalties; that name is “fanatic”.
Except of course they DO work - or can. There have been more cultures that practice polygamy than not. Nor for that matter does marriage require that love be equal between spouses; how could you even tell? A love-o-meter?
according to some religions , the Bahai’ in particular, that’s pretty much what happened. Several religions teach that God continues to send messengers/prophets/teachers, to different generations to continue the call.
I think verse 33 is the key here. Jesus message was consistently, seek the kingdom first and don’t let the cares of the world distract you or justify bad choices. Mankind tends to do just that.
I’m glad I finally got around to this thread. Other people have touched on my thoughts but here we go
Basically I think Jesus didn’t specifically condemn slavery as well as other issues because he saw it as a symptom rather than the disease itself which is what he was trying to address.
I’ve never been convinced Jesus himself thought he was returning to earth soon so I dismissed that idea right away. Admittedly, I’ve never done any study on this. I just never saw the evidence while reading the gospels.
To elaborate; I think Jesus saw that societies ills , whatever they be, could only truly be solved by a personal and individual transformation from within, which is what he advocated. The OT was about following rules. Jesus taught about the truth of what is going on within. If you hate then it’s the same as murder and such. If we as people seek to transform our hearts, minds and spirits to truly grasp and live the lessons he taught then societies ills will drop away on their own, as symptoms disappear when the disease is treated.
Furthermore, I think in his teachings labels and your position in society didn’t matter. What mattered is what is going on within and how that is reflected in your life and the way you deal with people. So, if you happen to have the label of master and you treat your slaves with respect and even love that’s what counts. If you have the label of slave then don’t harbor resentment but do your work diligently and respect and love your master.
works calls…
Matthew 16:27-28: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
I’m familiar with the passage but it doesn’t convince me. I admit it’s possible he thought that. I just don’t see anything conclusive. In that dialogue he also said,
Is he talking of spiritual death or a physical death?
A spiritual death. I think he means dying to self. It seems to me to be more about surrendering to Jesus and following him. Losing his life may mean losing some of your wealth or anything that keeps you from following Jesus. “What good would it do a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul”. Here he is saying that power, money and prestige will not get you eternal life.
Does this make sense ?