Why is this world out of control?

[nPeace]

I can answer, but I fear we're getting some message sprawl here. Our replies to each other will now be spread out across three posts. Let's do our best to condense to the heart of the matter.

Well actually, no. It's save me repeating what I said, or doing needless finger tapping.
You see, your answers to these questions will tell me if you ignored what I said, and just was interested in what you wanted to say.
I mentioned the need to avoid that, and talking past each other.

This is two questions rolled into one. These terms may be used interchangeably by some people. In some Bible translations the word for slave is translated euphemistically as servant. But I think there's a meaningful difference between owning another human being as property and her working for you as an employee who is paid, has legal rights, can own her own property, and so on. Do you disagree?


IMO slavery has always been immoral at its core. There have been masters who treated their slaves nicer than others, so that immorality is a matter of degree. But at root, treating another human being as a thing, an object to be bought and sold, gives one person too much power over another. This is why modern democracies enshrine human rights in law. We recognize that life is better for everyone when we are treated as free equals.

I take note 1) you acknowledged that these terms are used - (may be used sounds a little evasive) - interchangeably, and 2) you acknowledge that it is your opinion that slavery has always been immoral.
In other words, it's how you feel about it.

You see. That saved me quite a bit of time.
I already made my point, amd don't have to repeat. Easy.

Being a slave is not immoral... only to some people, but that does not make it immoral, because they feel it is.

In my other thread,

• I showed that being a slave was/is not always bad.
• Spoiler

  The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Genesis 12:16; Exodus 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2 Samuel11:21; 2 Chronicles10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2 Samuel 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cup-bearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Genesis 40:20; 1 Samuel 29:3; 1 Kings 9:27; 2 Chronicles 8:18; 9:10; 32:9).
  [*]You can read more here, for further enlightenment.
• I showed how slaves were treated better than many people who are not even slaves - (Deuteronomy 16:11-15)... even those who were enemies who either surrendered or were captured. - (1 Kings 9:20-23)..and allowed to live.
• I showed that this is no differnt to what happens to prisoners... except that under Israelite law, they were not chained.

Too bad RFs search engine no longer works properly.
It's hard finding what you search for now.

But I think there's a meaningful difference between owning another human being as property and her working for you as an employee who is paid, has legal rights, can own her own property, and so on. Do you disagree?

Didn't I answer this? Maybe I didn't.
First off, a slave in Israel was employed - Leviticus 25:40, paid - Leviticus 25:49-52, had legal rights - Leviticus 25:48-49; Leviticus 25:53, and owned property - Leviticus 25:41... unless that slave was a foreigner - from enemy nations.

Second. When you work for the boss, you are owned.
Were you bought? In some case... in fact, in a lot of cases, people are hired for a price.
It would surprise me if you denied that.

No one need to spell out everything for smart people, for them to read between the lines.
One does not even need to read between the lines in this case.

Sure, you can leave. So can the slave.
Both suffer consequences.
We have laws protecting us, if we leave, but so did the slaves back then. Deuteronomy 23:15, 16

I think what you are asking me here, is if I disagree that an unpainted jaguar is different to a painted jaguar.

treating another human being as a thing, an object to be bought and sold, gives one person too much power over another

Your opinion on this is your own.
The Israelites were brought, by Jehovah. How?
They were slaves in Egypt, with no hope at all of getting out alive.
They owe Jehovah their life. Not only for delivering them, but for taking care of them... in every way.
Jehovah did not consider them as mere things. He considered them his special property. His wife, whom he loved.
They were free to leave, and be on their own. Jehovah wasn't stopping them.
They knew that they suffered when they left him, because the nations around viewed them as insignificant and wanted to dominate them. So they wanted to be Jehovah's property... willingly.

Millions of people, including myself, were brought with a price... by Jehovah.
(1 Corinthians 6:20) . . .you were bought with a very high price.. . .
Hence we do not consider ourselves valueless "things", but belonging to Jehovah - our great loving father and friend.
As his children, we belong to him, and not ourselves. We no longer live for ourselves, but for him... because of our gratitude for his setting us free from slavery to this world.
We owe our life to him.
We are not mere things to him, but his people. We are special.

In both these cases, one thing stands out to me, and @YoursTrue mentioned this before. We are slaves to someone, or something, whether we want to accept it or not.
I rather be a slave to a loving father, who invites all to be his friends, and provides a banquet of well oiled dishes in abundance.

I mean, what slave eats like Jehovah's slaves do.
(Isaiah 65:13-14) 13 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: “Look! My own servants will eat, but YOU yourselves will go hungry. Look! My own servants will drink, but YOU yourselves will go thirsty. Look! My own servants will rejoice, but YOU yourselves will suffer shame. 14 Look! My own servants will cry out joyfully because of the good condition of the heart, but YOU yourselves will make outcries because of the pain of heart and YOU will howl because of sheer breakdown of spirit.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The god of the Bible is generous to mostly white English speaking people, while ignoring India, China, ignoring the largest population centers. Kind of like Santa only delivers presents to some privileged children *not good children*
How you see Santa, and how you see other religious beliefs, I see the Bible and Christians. A strange foreign concept.

Santa and Christmas is fiction. A commercial holiday.
A former non-biblical holiday (Saturnalia) now just dressed up with Christian names.
The good news (aka gospel) is proclaimed internationally today just as Jesus instructed at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8
Christians spread the good news that through Jesus there will be ' healing ' for -> earth's nations - Revelation 22:2.
Modern technology has made possible remote translation offices and allows for rapid Bible translation in remote areas of Earth so that now remote peoples can have Scripture in their own mother tongue, own native languages.
This 'good news' attractive message of God's kingdom in the hands of Christ Jesus is proclaimed world wide today as never before in history.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And what happens to you if you don't worship this God, pray tell?

Matthew 25:31-34 answers about the figurative ' sheep ' and ' goats '.
At Jesus' coming Glory Time those who prove themselves to be 'goat-like' will be gone forever.
Any who would bring ruin to Earth (literal or moral) will be brought to ruin - Revelation 11:18 B

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..............Blame is one of the petty things mankind holds so dear. Creating a religious figure to Blame everything on will do no good. Further, expecting God to come down and solve all your problems for you would defeat the system God has for us and this world.
Problems are meant to be solved before they go away. Perhaps, we all need to strengthen our resolve and work harder toward resolution.
How many problems would simply disappear if people didn't value those things mankind holds so dear? If it were only about Unconditional Love and Kindness, It would not take much effort to fix the rest. Mankind already has the science to fix it all. The only thing lacking is the will and the goal to do just that. That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Yes, problems are meant to be solved before they go away, but mankind's long history shows that MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, MAN's injury.
MAN has ignored the Golden Rule and Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35.
Now ignored to the point that Super-Human Problems can't be solved by humans.
This is why God will send Jesus to be our Super-Human Hero - Revelation 22:20
Jesus is the one who will bring ' healing ' to earth's nations - Revelation 22:2; Isaiah 35th chapter.

 

[idea]

Santa and Christmas is fiction. A commercial holiday.
A former non-biblical holiday (Saturnalia) now just dressed up with Christian names.
The good news (aka gospel) is proclaimed internationally today just as Jesus instructed at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8
Christians spread the good news that through Jesus there will be ' healing ' for -> earth's nations - Revelation 22:2.
Modern technology has made possible remote translation offices and allows for rapid Bible translation in remote areas of Earth so that now remote peoples can have Scripture in their own mother tongue, own native languages.
This 'good news' attractive message of God's kingdom in the hands of Christ Jesus is proclaimed world wide today as never before in history.

The fastest growing groups are not Christian.
Islam is the fastest-growing major religion in the world.

About Three-in-Ten U.S. Adults Are Now Religiously Unaffiliated

nones rule in us
Thank goodness for the actual truths which are being shared worldwide.

Santa is more real than God, there really was this guy Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia

Story is now exaggerated, but st nick appears to have been a real person at least.

 

[Left Coast]

Well actually, no. It's save me repeating what I said, or doing needless finger tapping.
You see, your answers to these questions will tell me if you ignored what I said, and just was interested in what you wanted to say.
I mentioned the need to avoid that, and talking past each other.

I don't think I've done that. The readers can decide, I suppose. I simply wanted us to keep from going on unnecessary tangents across multiple posts.

I take note 1) you acknowledged that these terms are used - (may be used sounds a little evasive) - interchangeably,

That people have done it doesn't mean i think it's reasonable. It muddies the waters.

2) you acknowledge that it is your opinion that slavery has always been immoral.
In other words, it's how you feel about it.

Of course. As it's your opinion that it isn't immoral. We're both exchanging opinions here. You didn't know that already?

Being a slave is not immoral... only to some people, but that does not make it immoral, because they feel it is.

Being a slave isn't moral...only to some people, but that does not make it moral, because they feel it is.

What else you got?

In my other thread,

• I showed that being a slave was/is not always bad.

Hardly. Let's review.

• Spoiler

  The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Genesis 12:16; Exodus 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2 Samuel11:21; 2 Chronicles10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2 Samuel 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cup-bearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Genesis 40:20; 1 Samuel 29:3; 1 Kings 9:27; 2 Chronicles 8:18; 9:10; 32:9).
  [*]You can read more here, for further enlightenment.

The slavery I'm referring to is ownership of other people as property. In other words, the common usage of the term. And this is an institution the Bible endorses. As you've already conceded.

• I showed how slaves were treated better than many people who are not even slaves - (Deuteronomy 16:11-15)

That passage is a command for all of Israel, including slaves, to observe Sukkot. It is irrelevant to our debate and certainly doesn't demonstrate slaves being "treated better than many people who are not slaves."

even those who were enemies who either surrendered or were captured. - (1 Kings 9:20-23)..and allowed to live.

Are you actually reading the verses you're posting? Or just pulling them from some Watchtower article? This passage certainly doesn't say slaves were treated better than other people. It says the people in verse 22 - Israelites - specifically weren't made slaves. The Gentiles were.

I showed that this is no differnt to what happens to prisoners... except that under Israelite law, they were not chained.

The passages you've quoted make no mention of whether people were chained or not. Is that what you think makes the big moral difference? You're not a "real" slave unless I put a chain around your neck?

Also, prisoners are in prison because they...commit crime. The only people who stay in prison for life any more are murderers. What crime do slaves born to slave parents commit? Or people whose villages are conquered by a neighboring tribe through no fault of theirs?

Thirdly, you should look into the Geneva Conventions some time. Modern prisoners of war are not (supposed to be) slaves.

Didn't I answer this? Maybe I didn't.
First off, a slave in Israel was employed - Leviticus 25:40, paid - Leviticus 25:49-52, had legal rights - Leviticus 25:48-49; Leviticus 25:53, and owned property - Leviticus 25:41... unless that slave was a foreigner - from enemy nations.

And if that slave was a foreigner? Then...?

Second. When you work for the boss, you are owned.

Flatly wrong. Sorry, no matter how many times you say it, it isn't going to become true. I am not enslaved to my employer. Any court hearing such a claim would immediately dismiss the case. It's laughable.

Were you bought?

No.

In some case... in fact, in a lot of cases, people are hired for a price.
It would surprise me if you denied that.

Oh for ****'s sake. I was hired by my free choice. Slaves aren't. They are bought and sold as property themselves.

It strains credulity that you truly don't comprehend that difference.

No one need to spell out everything for smart people, for them to read between the lines.
One does not even need to read between the lines in this case.

That's true. It's painfully obvious that you are making the thinnest of excuses for a despicable institution.

Sure, you can leave. So can the slave.
Both suffer consequences.

Classic line of a person holding another at gunpoint. Hey, you have a choice!

By definition, slaves cannot leave without their owner's consent. Employees can. If you don't understand that...I really can't help you.

We have laws protecting us, if we leave, but so did the slaves back then. Deuteronomy 23:15, 16

That passage is about what happens when Israel is at war and encamped against an enemy nations and one of their enemies' slaves flees to them. Which of course, benefits Israel.

What happens when a slave of Israel flees?

Your opinion on this is your own.

Why do you keep saying that like it proves something? You're giving your opinions. I'm giving mine. And?

The Israelites were brought, by Jehovah. How?
They were slaves in Egypt, with no hope at all of getting out alive.
They owe Jehovah their life. Not only for delivering them, but for taking care of them... in every way.
Jehovah did not consider them as mere things. He considered them his special property. His wife, whom he loved.
They were free to leave, and be on their own. Jehovah wasn't stopping them.
They knew that they suffered when they left him, because the nations around viewed them as insignificant and wanted to dominate them. So they wanted to be Jehovah's property... willingly.

That's nice. At best "slavery" to some unproven immaterial deity is a metaphor. I'm more concerned about actual living breathing people owning other people as property.

In both these cases, one thing stands out to me, and @YoursTrue mentioned this before. We are slaves to someone, or something, whether we want to accept it or not.
I rather be a slave to a loving father, who invites all to be his friends, and provides a banquet of well oiled dishes in abundance.

The thing is...you're not. You may tell yourself you are. You may act like you are in certain ways. But there's no actual person who can be demonstrated to actually legally own you as property. You are metaphorically "enslaved" to a set of rules and doctrines set forth for you by some men, perhaps. And you may genuinely believe those ideas come from the creator of the universe and follow them quite dogmatically. But at some point...the metaphor breaks down. And I think you know this. Or at least, I hope you do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not really.
A lot of things were common back then, which God allowed because of the "culture".

For example, while God could have fought every battle against enemy nations, singlehandedly, he allowed, and even commanded his people to fight.

They had the 'guts'. They were of a nation familiar with violence, so that they would chop off heads and not bat an eye.
God allowed that for its time, and purpose.

He also allowed a man to have more than one wife, even though he was against it, and commanded otherwise. He tolerated it for a time.

Hmm, okay. So what good is God's morality then, if it's as relative as you claim here?
I mean, if this God allows certain immoral things because of the "culture" then it doesn't sound at all like this God is dictating morality - rather, he takes his cues from human beings.
You've just made an argument for moral relativism.

You see, God does not work like we do - panicky, and haphazardly.
He works according to a timetable, and scheduled time for accomplishing his purpose, and will.
So, until the Messiah, he simply put a tutor in place.
(Galatians 3:23-25)

23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.

That tutor would allow a remnant to continue until the Messiah arrived.
Once the Messiah arrives, the tutor would leave. Thus there would be adjustments, as these are superior - the real deal, actually.
Explaining this to you would require a new thread, and lots of pages, but if you want, I can do it.

The point is, what is common back then among his people, was given consideration, because the light had not appeared as yet.
(John 1:9) The true light that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world.
(John 3:19) Now this is the basis for judgment: that the light has come into the world. . .

This is called being reasonable, and considerate.
Once the light has shone forth though, that's a different ball game.


As I said before, he did.
(Leviticus 25:42) For they are my slaves whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They should not sell themselves the way a slave is sold.

While God didn't tell them to stop that practice right that instance, he did give guidelines on how they practice slavery, during the time he allowed it.
So from the get go of him adopting the nation, God said this.
(Exodus 21:1-6) 1 “These are the judicial decisions that you are to convey to them: 2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he will serve as a slave for six years, but in the seventh year, he will be set free without paying anything.

In some cases, that slave wanted to stay, and not leave.
That refutes your argument, you see... along with all I said before.
5 But if the slave should insist and say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my sons; I do not want to be set free,’ 6 his master must bring him before the true God. Then he will bring him up against the door or the doorpost, and his master will pierce his ear through with an awl, and he will be his slave for life.

The slave wanted to be property. He willingly wanted to serve his master for life.
Obviously, he was treated well, and more than likely felt indebted to his master for caring for him, in his destitute times.

Notice, God did not say, "Stop it now."
Considering 1) this nation is a nation of stiff-necked people; 2) the practice in itself is not bad, but has benefits; and 3) it is the nation through whom the Messiah would come, God applied reasonableness.

Benefits? You ask. How can it be good?
(Leviticus 25:39-43) 39 “‘If your brother who lives nearby becomes poor and he has to sell himself to you, you must not force him to do slave labor. 40 He should be treated like a hired worker, like a settler. He should serve with you until the Jubilee year. 41 Then he will leave you, he and his children with him, and return to his family. He should return to the property of his forefathers. 42 For they are my slaves whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They should not sell themselves the way a slave is sold. 43 You must not treat him cruelly, and you must be in fear of your God.

(Deuteronomy 15:12-15) 12 “If one of your brothers, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you and has served you for six years, then in the seventh year you should set him free. 13 And if you should set him free, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 You should supply him generously with something from your flock, your threshing floor, and your press for oil and wine. Just as Jehovah your God has blessed you, you should give to him. 15 Remember that you became a slave in the land of Egypt and that Jehovah your God redeemed you. That is why I am commanding you to do this today.

Have you ever made a job contract, to work with X firm for X years?
Hopefully you see how this is as it is today. No difference.

The word slave is actually written on that image.
That's how they feel, but in reality, that's what it is.

However, God did not restrict the Israelites from enslaving those of the nations around.
(Leviticus 25:44-46) 44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you, from them you may buy a male or a female slave. 45 Also from the sons of the foreign settlers who are residing with you, from them and from their families that are born to them in your land you may buy slaves, and they will become your possession. 46 You may pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you to inherit as a permanent possession. You may use them as workers, but you must not subject your Israelite brothers to cruel treatment.

Did God command his people to enslave those ones?
No. God told them where they were not allowed to take slaves from, and where they were allowed do take them from.
God never commanded his people to take slaves.
He regulated the practice, by stating limits.

It's like a fisherman going about his business of fishing.
The government might say to the fisherman, "You can fish in these waters. That's where you can take your fish, but you should not fish in those waters."
The government did not command the fisherman to fish.
It is the fisherman's practice.

The Israelites had the practice of keeping slaves.
God simply told them where those slave are allowed to be taken from.
He didn't command them to do so.
That was the Israelites' decision.

This was how they dealt with the enemy nations around them.
All other nations were their brothers - Ammon, Moab, etc.
Again, you can read the scriptures I posted in the thread on slavery, and why their dealing with the nations in this way was not condemned.

Off topic.
I notice that RF's search engine isn't working properly, as previous. Are you guys working on it?



The fact that people try to sully those who have a clean record, because they feel condemned by that record, and so try to dig up dirt on that person, shows that yes, there is a satanic influence on this world - clearly against God.



No. I believe it's right for me to be killed for my lack of faith in God... by God.
Are you listening to what I say?

I don't have the right to kill anyone for their beliefs or lack of, nor do you.
God has that right. As the source of life - the creator - the one responsible for planet earth. God has the right to decides who gets to live on it.

That's what I believe.
Let's not talk past each other, or just listen to ourselves.

 

[nPeace]

Hmm, okay. So what good is God's morality then, if it's as relative as you claim here?
I mean, if this God allows certain immoral things because of the "culture" then it doesn't sound at all like this God is dictating morality - rather, he takes his cues from human beings.
You've just made an argument for moral relativism.

Did I say God allowed things because of culture?
I'm saying God allowed certain things for a time. He had a set time for which persons were expected to adjust, and he has a set time to completely end these things.
Meanwhile, his reasonableness allowed for the culture in which people find themselve, so that he uses consideration in his dealings with these ones.

With regard to slavery, is it the case you and @Left Coast have a problem with "owning persons as property"?
Is that your sole argument? Or is there something else?

What is your view of imprisoning people?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did I say God allowed things because of culture?

Yep.

"A lot of things were common back then, which God allowed because of the "culture".

I'm saying God allowed certain things for a time. He had a set time for which persons were expected to adjust, and he has a set time to completely end these things.

You are arguing for moral relativism. In other words, you are arguing against universal moral principles.

Meanwhile, his reasonableness allowed for the culture in which people find themselve, so that he uses consideration in his dealings with these ones.

Sometimes it's a-ok to own human beings, and sometimes it's not. How do we figure out when and where it is or isn't moral? Oh, you have to ask some God what he thinks in that particular situation. Well, that's about as subjective as morality can get, isn't it? Again, you're arguing against universal moral principles.

With regard to slavery, is it the case you and @Left Coast have a problem with "owning persons as property"?
Is that your sole argument? Or is there something else?

What is your view of imprisoning people?

Yes, owning human beings as property is immoral. No matter the time or place.

Imprisoning someone for committing a crime is not the same thing as owning human beings as property. Neither is employment. I've heard those silly arguments before.

 

[Left Coast]

Did I say God allowed things because of culture?
I'm saying God allowed certain things for a time. He had a set time for which persons were expected to adjust, and he has a set time to completely end these things.
Meanwhile, his reasonableness allowed for the culture in which people find themselve, so that he uses consideration in his dealings with these ones.

Why would he need anyone to adjust at all, if there's nothing problematic about slavery?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And what happens to you if you don't worship this God, pray tell?

Jesus taught there is only one true God, so if a person puts another God/god ahead of the God of Jesus then that person is giving worship (first place) to that God/god and disobeying Jesus at John 4:23-24.
The God of the Bible does Not share worship with any other God/god.
Worship of another God/god is idolatry. Idol worshippers will Not inherit God's kingdom and will become extinct.

 

[nPeace]

Yep.

"A lot of things were common back then, which God allowed because of the "culture".


You are arguing for moral relativism. In other words, you are arguing against universal moral principles.


Sometimes it's a-ok to own human beings, and sometimes it's not. How do we figure out when and where it is or isn't moral? Oh, you have to ask some God what he thinks in that particular situation. Well, that's about as subjective as morality can get, isn't it? Again, you're arguing against universal moral principles.


Yes, owning human beings as property is immoral. No matter the time or place.

Imprisoning someone for committing a crime is not the same thing as owning human beings as property. Neither is employment. I've heard those silly arguments before.

Right, so your problem is with owning human beings as property is immoral.
Thanks. You feel that way. It's your opinion. Yes?
I don't agree with your opinion, as I mentioned before, people do not have a problem slaving for others, or being owned by them as they feel they owe their lives to that one.

Also, people are happy slaving for their master Christ, and not being slaves to this world.
It's not immoral to me. Nor is it immoral to God.

Can we end it here, now that we gave our opinions, or do you want to argue about it some more?

Oh. you did ask a question.
I'm not ignoring it. It's the same @Left Coast asked.
I'll link you the answer the same time I give Left.

@Left Coast adjust what was not part of God's purpose in the beginning.
The slavery I mentioned in the light you have ignored for the past few hours will remain -

• where persons slave for others - that is, minister to or serve others willingly. (They were not to be forced laborers, or sold as slaves.)
• where persons serve God willingly as his slave

The slavery, which God regulated during the time the Israelites were in the situation they were will end -

• where the poor felt they needed to become slaves - hired workers, or laborers to another (No one will be poor then, and need to work for anyone, to feed themselves and family).
• where people from surrounding enemy nations were used for forced labor (This was adjusted in the first century... for God's people, and will end, along with all wars)

There are things that aren't considered bad today, which were not part of God's purpose, but which will end, and we will have to adjust.
For example,

• butchering animals for food. That will be gone.
• working for bosses to pay the bills, and feed ourselves and family.
• paying taxes.

 

[Left Coast]

@Left Coast adjust what was not part of God's purpose in the beginning.
The slavery I mentioned in the light you have ignored for the past few hours will remain -

I didnt ignore it, i specifically addressed it. Please don't say things about me that are demonstrably false.

where persons slave for others - that is, minister to or serve others willingly. (They were not to be forced laborers, or sold as slaves.)

And as I explained to you, this is not "slavery" in any meaningful way. It is doing someone a favor, being kind. That is not enslavement. I don't know how many more times I can explain the basic difference to you.

If you're referencing the "indentured servitude" of some Hebrews to others, that's I suppose less bad on the moral scale, though we still have better ways of dealing with such things today. And of course that wasn't slavery of the Gentiles, which was to be owned as property, whether they were willing or not.

where persons serve God willingly as his slave

And I also addressed this. It's at best a metaphorical kind of "slavery" to ideas.

 

[nPeace]

I didnt ignore it, i specifically addressed it. Please don't say things about me that are demonstrably false.

You did, but ignored it subsequently.

And as I explained to you, this is not "slavery" in any meaningful way. It is doing someone a favor, being kind. That is not enslavement. I don't know how many more times I can explain the basic difference to you.

You don't get to decide that.
Try rewriting history, and say Left Coast said so.

If you're referencing the "indentured servitude" of some Hebrews to others, that's I suppose less bad on the moral scale, though we still have better ways of dealing with such things today. And of course that wasn't slavery of the Gentiles, which was to be owned as property, whether they were willing or not.

You don't get to decide how people deal with their enemies either.

And I also addressed this. It's at best a metaphorical kind of "slavery" to ideas.

Whatever that means.

 

[Left Coast]

You did, but ignored it subsequently.

Again, no, I didn't. You didn't like what I said, perhaps. Or repeated the same thing I had already addressed.

You don't get to decide that.

No, the facts do. And the facts don't support your position. The only person attempting to rewrite history here is you.

You don't get to decide how people deal with their enemies either.

I absolutely do when I'm asked to believe such actions are moral.

Whatever that means.

Indeed, it's a bizarre claim for you to make that just further muddies the waters to make excuses for the actual slavery condoned by your god.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right, so your problem is with owning human beings as property is immoral.
Thanks. You feel that way. It's your opinion. Yes?
I don't agree with your opinion, as I mentioned before, people do not have a problem slaving for others, or being owned by them as they feel they owe their lives to that one.

You don't agree that owning human beings as property is immoral. Well, that's pretty much all I need to know, I guess.
You have lost your moral compass because you have to defend whatever the Bible says.

I don't know where you come up with the idea that people "have no problem" being slaves but I can demonstrate how nonsensical that is right now ... You can be my slave. I will own you as property, and you let me know how you feel about that.

Also, people are happy slaving for their master Christ, and not being slaves to this world.
It's not immoral to me. Nor is it immoral to God.

We're talking about people being owned as property.
That's not immoral to you? Eesh.

Can we end it here, now that we gave our opinions, or do you want to argue about it some more?

Sure, we can end it here with you being my slave for life. I own you until you die. Oh and your children belong to me as well. Let's go!

Oh. you did ask a question.
I'm not ignoring it. It's the same @Left Coast asked.
I'll link you the answer the same time I give Left.

@Left Coast adjust what was not part of God's purpose in the beginning.
The slavery I mentioned in the light you have ignored for the past few hours will remain -

• where persons slave for others - that is, minister to or serve others willingly. (They were not to be forced laborers, or sold as slaves.)
• where persons serve God willingly as his slave

The slavery, which God regulated during the time the Israelites were in the situation they were will end -

• where the poor felt they needed to become slaves - hired workers, or laborers to another (No one will be poor then, and need to work for anyone, to feed themselves and family).
• where people from surrounding enemy nations were used for forced labor (This was adjusted in the first century... for God's people, and will end, along with all wars)

• Hired workers aren't people who are owned as property. Laborers who are paid for their work aren't owned by their employers.

This argument is a distraction from what we're actually talking about. But you knew that already since you've already tried it with someone else.

There are things that aren't considered bad today, which were not part of God's purpose, but which will end, and we will have to adjust.
For example,

• butchering animals for food. That will be gone.
• working for bosses to pay the bills, and feed ourselves and family.
• paying taxes.

None of this is slavery.

And I see you're still arguing for moral relativism. If morality is dependent upon the culture and the time period, then any idea of some sort of universal moral principles coming from God goes out the window.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Since righteous Abel

Other than not being vegan, what else did Abel do that was righteous? Remember, Cain was derided for sacrificing veggies but the story never established that it was not allowed.

 

[nPeace]

You don't agree that owning human beings as property is immoral. Well, that's pretty much all I need to know, I guess.
You have lost your moral compass because you have to defend whatever the Bible says.

There is a moral compass?
Well now we are getting somewhere.
I've been asking this question a long time, but none of the atheists would give me a straight answer... well except for @Nimos.

Who created this moral compass? Was it you? Or atheists?

I don't know where you come up with the idea that people "have no problem" being slaves but I can demonstrate how nonsensical that is right now ... You can be my slave. I will own you as property, and you let me know how you feel about that.

I'm not able to quote the remaining article, but you can read the third paragraph. In fact, it might help to read the next few.

SLAVE
The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (ʽeʹvedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ʽEʹvedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God’s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar.—Jer 27:6.
The Greek term douʹlos corresponds to the Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh. It is used with reference to persons owned by fellowmen (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word synʹdou·los [fellow slave] appears); and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or corruption (2Pe 2:19).

You can also read this article.
Ancient Israel: Slavery, Servanthood, and Social Welfare
Overview
This article corrects the common misconception that slavery/servanthood in the legal code of ancient Israel was comparable to the harsh slavery of other ancient cultures and the early United States.

Here is a bit of info, from someone writing from a non-religious point of view.

We're talking about people being owned as property.

Yes.

That's not immoral to you? Eesh.

No. Cussing and swearing - using profanity or obscene speech, homosexual acts, promiscuity, viewing pornographic material, being entertained by violence, smoking, getting drunk, oral and anal sex, adultery, revelry / wild parties, and similar vices are obscene to me.

Sure, we can end it here with you being my slave for life. I own you until you die. Oh and your children belong to me as well. Let's go!

I can be your slave, sure.
In fact I am... well not technically, since I have not met you in person, but I would gladly spend myself and be spent, taking the good news of peace to you, at my experience.... if you were interested.

You don't have a problem with that slavery though, right?
You want to own me. What for, may I ask?

• Hired workers aren't people who are owned as property. Laborers who are paid for their work aren't owned by their employers.

This argument is a distraction from what we're actually talking about. But you knew that already since you've already tried it with someone else.
None of this is slavery.

Perhaps you didn't read the scripture, or you missed them.
Let me post them again.
Here they are. You don't have to read the entire passage. I highlighted the main parts for you.

(Leviticus 25:39-40) 39 “‘If your brother who lives nearby becomes poor and he has to sell himself to you, you must not force him to do slave labor. 40 He should be treated like a hired worker, like a settler. He should serve with you until the Jubilee year. . .

(Leviticus 25:47-50) 47 “‘But if a foreign resident or a settler among you becomes wealthy and your brother has become poor alongside him and must sell himself to the foreign resident or the settler who lives among you, or to a member of the family of the foreign resident, 48 he will continue to have the right of repurchase after he has sold himself. One of his brothers may buy him back, 49 or his uncle or the son of his uncle may buy him back, or any close relative, one of his family, may buy him back. “‘Or if he himself has become wealthy, he may also buy himself back. 50 He should calculate with his purchaser the time from the year he sold himself to him until the Jubilee year, and the money of his sale will correspond to the number of years. His workdays during that time will be assessed at the rate of a hired worker.
51 If there are many years remaining, he should pay his repurchase price in proportion to the years that are left. 52 But if only a few years remain until the Jubilee year, he should then calculate for himself and pay his repurchase price in proportion to the years remaining. 53 He should continue to serve him year by year as a hired worker; and you should see to it that he does not treat him cruelly. 54 However, if he cannot buy himself back on these terms, he will then go free in the year of Jubilee, he and his children with him.

And I see you're still arguing for moral relativism. If morality is dependent upon the culture and the time period, then any idea of some sort of universal moral principles coming from God goes out the window.

I did not say morality is dependent upon the culture and the time period. You misunderstand what I said... I believe.

 

[osgart]

The world is out of control because of moral relativism. Also I'm starting to think there are many people who don't know what morality is. People today define things in such a way that their definitions cater to justifying anything self serving.

Also people don't regard the abstract reality of things like virtues. Good, and bad don't exist to people who will do literally anything to get their way.

False beliefs that are not benign knock the world out of control as well. When people have distorted misconceptions about other people due to their convictions about reality things get out of control.

Demanding conformity to other people's convictions is a recipe for oppression, and/or revolt.

Not recognizing and agreeing on general objective truths is sure to lead people into disaster.

The view that people are incapable of being morally responsible doesn't help.

The view that we have no power to choose things responsibly doesn't help either.

The erosion of language and meaning does not help.

 

[Bird123]

Yes, problems are meant to be solved before they go away, but mankind's long history shows that MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, MAN's injury.
MAN has ignored the Golden Rule and Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35.
Now ignored to the point that Super-Human Problems can't be solved by humans.
This is why God will send Jesus to be our Super-Human Hero - Revelation 22:20
Jesus is the one who will bring ' healing ' to earth's nations - Revelation 22:2; Isaiah 35th chapter.

So how is the world doing? Mankind continues to move forward. As mankind's knowledge increases so does the rate of Discovery increases. More knowledge means the ability to solve more problems.

Since a multilevel classroom is a classroom, that means new students are born to enter the classroom. This world serves God's purpose very well. Even with new students in need of understanding arriving, mankind as a whole continues to get better slowly solving the problems along the way.

With the age of communication advancing, even people who live in countries without freedom will taste freedom through communication of the masses. This will lead the push forward until, in time, the world will understand that freedom moves everyone forward.

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. The strength of diversity and freedom will bring ideas forward that the few limited wanting control will never see. The result will be increased economics, intelligence and power. Why do you think God grants everyone total freedom? It's because it's the intelligent thing to do.

So often people preach doom and gloom blind to the advances goodness is making. When tragedy hits, watch goodness rise up from all directions to take care of things. Funny how the doom and gloom is more news worthy than what really counts.

How is mankind doing? Mankind is supporting more people on this planet than has ever been sustained. More people are educated than have ever been since the beginning of time. Sure there is much to do going forward. On the other hand, mankind is headed in the right direction.

Want to Help? Walk forward, pointing the way forward instead of preaching doom ,gloom ,blame and condemning. One can see much more looking up.

God made this world so Brains win. Let's nurture intelligence working together to solve the problems rather than the useless energy spent on blaming, condemning, and hate. Together, the problems are solved much quicker. Blaming, condemning and hating and the road will be much much longer.

It rests within all our hands. Be the teacher!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!