The GOD Thread~

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Servanthood and Slavery

The ancient Hebrews had laws on slavery (which was allowed of the foreigners and nations surrounding the nation of Israel) and servants (the poor of the Hebrews). I am not a jewish expert, nor do I want to be, but basically this system functioned as their welfare system. It should not be confused with the American slavery we think of in the book Roots. Undoubtedly there have been cruel slave owners, but that is not God's intent.

Slaves were not to be oppressed, and were not to be returned to their owners if they escaped. This is obviously a safeguard by God against abusing slaves.

Servants were to serve 6 years and go free in the 7th, laden with good and assets. Unless they wanted to stay in their master's home, and then they could stay indefinitely with their master, once pierced in the ear. They were not to be ruled over with rigor. They did not have rights as far as I know, but their humanity was protected in God's Law.

Jesus came along and preached love and compassion, making slavery obsolete. But it does not necessarily change being a servant, because a poor person needs help and there is nothing wrong with working for your keep. We all must do that. Working 6 days is actually commanded in the 4th commandment! Jesus preaches love and compassion, but that does not mean we have to give everything away, or not expect those among us who are poor to not work to earn their keep.

God's intent regarding slavery is that the foreign people from nations around them, who were not children of God, were living sinful lives ignorant of God's Laws. It would be better to be a slave to a Hebrew God-fearing master than a citizen of a Godless country.

Servants were possibly Hebrews or aliens who became sold by their families for money, or perhaps fell into such dire straits they sold themselves. Servants were commanded to be treated well, lived in the master's home, and had a good life.

There are many laws commanding God's children to help their brethren if they become poor, to redeem their home and land for them, and to treat all, even strangers, as family. Being a servant was inevitable however, because there will always be poor people in every society.

Today we just have a government that takes money from people and doles it out to the poor. The government decides who gets what and how much. Being a servant in the ancient Holy Land meant you lived in a nice house, worked 6 days, rested the 7th, had good food to eat, a family with you, and a decent master. Our poor live in their own little corner of squalor with little resources or help. Hmm. Which sounds better to you?


In summation, I'm not sure about slavery, whether it is always wrong, or whether it can be incorporated into sound Christianity. Food for thought.

 

[Qre:us]

God's intent regarding slavery is that the foreign people from nations around them, who were not children of God, were living sinful lives ignorant of God's Laws. It would be better to be a slave to a Hebrew God-fearing master than a citizen of a Godless country.

That's exactly what happened with American slavery. They took free people from "Godless" countries, to be slaves of Hebrew God-fearing masters.

It should not be confused with the American slavery we think of in the book Roots. Undoubtedly there have been cruel slave owners, but that is not God's intent.

So, then, are you saying American slavery was okay?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

That's exactly what happened with American slavery. They took free people from "Godless" countries, to be slaves of Hebrew God-fearing masters.



So, then, are you saying American slavery was okay?

I don't know enough about the facts as I am weak in my history.

But. If they actually went over there and beat and stole innocent black people and forced them to get on the ships against their will, then that would be anti-Christian.

Also, Africa is not a nation 'surrounding us' so to go out of our way that far and do that seems cruel and heinous. It might be different if we conquered a surrounding nation. But then the problem you have there is that Christianity has spread so far and wife, that nearly everyone is your brethren and is to be treated as a hired servant, not a slave.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I don't know enough about the facts as I am weak in my history.

But. If they actually went over there and beat and stole innocent black people and forced them to get on the ships against their will, then that would be anti-Christian.

Also, Africa is not a nation 'surrounding us' so to go out of our way that far and do that seems cruel and heinous. It might be different if we conquered a surrounding nation. But then the problem you have there is that Christianity has spread so far and wife, that nearly everyone is your brethren and is to be treated as a hired servant, not a slave.

I think the point [MENTION=5645]Qre:us[/MENTION] might've been trying to make is that religion has been used as an excuse for enslaving or eradicating people for thousands of years. Spanish conquistadores, upon meeting natives, would announce their intent to convert a population to Christianity or punish them for their refusal to convert. Of course, the natives didn't understand spanish, meaning they were going to be annihalated or enslaved, but convenient for the spanish empire to have such a convenient excuse for their brutalism. "We gave them a chance to see the light, they refused to listen" despite knowing full well that the natives were never going to understand the intent of the conquerors.

 

[Riva]

I don't know enough about the facts as I am weak in my history.

But. If they actually went over there and beat and stole innocent black people and forced them to get on the ships against their will, then that would be anti-Christian.

They were mostly invited. They willingly came to learn the ways of the Christian faith. Slavery was a burden they wished to bear so they could learn to live in a sinless god fearing way.

Also, Africa is not a nation 'surrounding us' so to go out of our way that far and do that seems cruel and heinous. It might be different if we conquered a surrounding nation. But then the problem you have there is that Christianity has spread so far and wife, that nearly everyone is your brethren and is to be treated as a hired servant, not a slave.

Lolz, if there were nations that were close to USA that weren't God fearing, do you think it would have been right to enslave them? Enslave them correctly or course, not cruelly or unchristianically.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think the point [MENTION=5645]Qre:us[/MENTION] might've been trying to make is that religion has been used as an excuse for enslaving or eradicating people for thousands of years. Spanish conquistadores, upon meeting natives, would announce their intent to convert a population to Christianity or punish them for their refusal to convert. Of course, the natives didn't understand spanish, meaning they were going to be annihalated or enslaved, but convenient for the spanish empire to have such a convenient excuse for their brutalism. "We gave them a chance to see the light, they refused to listen" despite knowing full well that the natives were never going to understand the intent of the conquerors.

Yeah, unfortunately Christians have been perpetuating un-Christlike behaviors in His name, since Christ rose from the dead.

Then bystanders or students of history attribute man's sin to God's faultiness.


Nowadays, we convert people with missionaries.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Maybe we shouldn't convert to begin with.

Not for me to decide though.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

They were mostly invited. They willingly came to learn the ways of the Christian faith. Slavery was a burden they wished to bear so they could learn to live in a sinless god fearing way.

lol

yeah, yeah.

Lolz, if there were nations that were close to USA that weren't God fearing, do you think it would have been right to enslave them? Enslave them correctly or course, not cruelly or unchristianically.

Again, there are those places where God's Law and Jesus' teachings can be hard to conflate. It is rare, but slavery is a good example of this. Divorce is another. God had a reason for allowing slavery to begin with. Those reasons did not all disappear in Jesus' time. Have they disappeared now? Perhaps? But I have not studied this subject in much depth.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Maybe we shouldn't convert to begin with.

Not for me to decide though.

Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. ~Matthew 28:19-20

 

[á´…eparted]

Maybe we shouldn't convert to begin with.

Not for me to decide though.

Oh I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to decide if it is right wrong. Not in the sense of dictating what everyone can and not do, but make an argument for or against it.

Personally, I am quite against conversion, and the very concept of religious missionaries disgusts me.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Oh I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to decide if it is right wrong. Not in the sense of dictating what everyone can and not do, but make an argument for or against it.

Personally, I am quite against conversion, and the very concept of religious missionaries disgusts me.

I am finding that I have a problem with missionaries seeking to be supported by others. I sort of think if you are supposed to be a missionary, then you will find your room and board, not need it given to you as a check by someone who makes a paycheck.

Indeed, Jesus said:

Provide no currency in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food. ~Matthew 10:9-10

So a missionary who pays for everything (as they do with YWAM) is not really doing what Jesus commanded here. It 'should' be that if you work, you are kept and fed by those you are working for. In this way, you know you are wanted there. If you are not wanted there, and no one will feed you, then it is obviously not God's will and you should leave that place:

And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. ~Matthew 10:14


So, yeah, I don't believe in missionaries PUSHING themselves on people. Being accepted in is one thing, but forcing themselves in, or paying (bribing) to be there is not holy.

 

[Qre:us]

I don't know enough about the facts as I am weak in my history.

But. If they actually went over there and beat and stole innocent black people and forced them to get on the ships against their will, then that would be anti-Christian.

I am flabbergasted by your response claiming naivete, when it was YOU who referenced Roots. The book is about Kunta Kinte, following his capture in Africa, and sold into slavery, and then following his life to descendants, the author, Alex Hailey. Hence, why it's called roots.

 

[1487610420]

Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. ~Matthew 28:19-20

"Bring an AK47 in case they have difficulty seeing the light".

 

[Lark]

I am finding that I have a problem with missionaries seeking to be supported by others. I sort of think if you are supposed to be a missionary, then you will find your room and board, not need it given to you as a check by someone who makes a paycheck.

Indeed, Jesus said:

Provide no currency in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food. ~Matthew 10:9-10

So a missionary who pays for everything (as they do with YWAM) is not really doing what Jesus commanded here. It 'should' be that if you work, you are kept and fed by those you are working for. In this way, you know you are wanted there. If you are not wanted there, and no one will feed you, then it is obviously not God's will and you should leave that place:

And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. ~Matthew 10:14


So, yeah, I don't believe in missionaries PUSHING themselves on people. Being accepted in is one thing, but forcing themselves in, or paying (bribing) to be there is not holy.

Have you heard of a philosopher called Raymond Angelo Belliotti?

He is one of my favourites, he has written about Machavelli and Dante, Italians like him, I think his book on Machavelli is one of the only ones to be really fair to Machavelli but also not to romanticise Machavelli either, he has also written a good book on sex and another on why happiness is over rated, I've read the later but not the former yet, I do agree that the pursuit of happiness is in error but if you pursue something else it could make you happy in the process.

Anyway, he has written a magnificient book called Jesus or Nietzsche and he sort of tries to achieve a fusion of the both, it was probably one of the best intrepretations of Jesus I have ever read, and he makes a good argument that the two are not poles apart as is supposed by many or even possibly Nietzsche himself.

Jesus' own doctrines and discipline was radically minimalist, radically so, possibly the only person to approximate anything like it since was Ghandi, when questions of support, dependency, service etc. all come into things I keep this in mind.

There shouldnt ever be a case of people bribing or enticing people into believing something, that is human, all too human, although Christians could reflect the giving and self-sacrificing ways of God and Jesus in their own conduct, however, this ought to be sharing, rather than servility or subordination or anything of that sort too.

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

So, yeah, I don't believe in missionaries PUSHING themselves on people. Being accepted in is one thing, but forcing themselves in, or paying (bribing) to be there is not holy.

That's perception. I see they're passionate about what they believe. To each his own. Love them anyway.

 

[á´…eparted]

That's perception. I see they're passionate about what they believe. To each his own. Love them anyway.

How about no. I have absolutely zero respect for that kind of coersion. Regardless of passion and intent.

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

How about no. I have absolutely zero respect for that kind of coersion. Regardless of passion and intent.

Take a deep breath. It's not worth getting worked up about and getting high blood pressure. If you have solid boundaries and surely you do, then they're no threat to you.

 

[Qre:us]

Take a deep breath. It's not worth getting worked up about and getting high blood pressure. If you have solid boundaries and surely you do, then they're no threat to you.

So that means that those who are vulnerable should be exploited by such people, because they don't have solid boundaries to resist such coercion?

Your bias is showing.

To each his own.

You contradict yourself. For the missionaries, you exult, "To each his own." Yet, the missionaries' very passion, is to convert those into their own ideology. Their passion and very work is to override the very entitlement you afford them, "To each his own."

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

So that means that those who are vulnerable should be exploited by such people, because they don't have solid boundaries to resist such coercion?

Your bias is showing.

You contradict yourself. For the missionaries, you exult, "To each his own." Yet, the missionaries' very passion, is to convert those into their own ideology. Their passion and very work is to override the very entitlement you afford them, "To each his own."

I intercede for the weak in prayer. People are not the enemy. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world. (Ephesians 6:12)