Religion

[Nosajimiki]

Main Entry: bond·age
Pronunciation: 'bän-dij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from bonde customary tenant, from Middle English
1 : the tenure or service of a villein, serf, or slave
2 : a state of being bound usually by compulsion (as of law or mastery): as a : CAPTIVITY, SERFDOM b : servitude or subjugation to a controlling person or force <young>

villein - an unfree peasant standing as the slave of a feudal lord but free in legal relations with respect to all others

serf - a member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner

slave - a person held in servitude as the chattel of another, one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

In English, "bond" (bondage) means an invollentary subjegation which also makes since as the opposite of free(free will implied), so by that translation, an indentured servent would have been free in that it is thier dissision. Villeins and serfs are born into it and slaves are either born or forced into it. But, even if he did entend bond only as an endenturement, why would he, if such an intellegent person as to be able to explain the will of God, negelect to mention the immorality or fail to even acknowledge the other forms of slavery if he did not consider them inclusive?

[Elros]

Slavery and the Israelites

The Bible states that "man has dominated man to his injury." (Ecclesiastes 8:9) This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the oppressive forms of slavery that have been devised by man. Jehovah God is not indifferent to the suffering that slavery has wrought.

For example, consider a situation that developed with the Israelites. The Bible tells us that the Egyptians "kept making their life bitter with hard slavery at clay mortar and bricks and with every form of slavery in the field, yes, every form of slavery of theirs in which they used them as slaves under tyranny." The Israelites "continued to sigh because of the slavery and to cry out in complaint, and their cry for help kept going up to the true God." Was Jehovah indifferent to their plight? On the contrary, "God heard their groaning and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Furthermore, Jehovah told his people: "I shall certainly bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from their slavery."—Exodus 1:14; 2:23, 24; 6:6-8.

Clearly, Jehovah did not approve of 'man dominating man' through abusive slavery. But did not God later allow slavery among his people? Yes, he did. However, the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout history.

God's Law stated that kidnapping and selling a human was punishable by death. Furthermore, Jehovah provided guidelines to protect slaves. For example, a slave who was maimed by his master would be set free. If a slave died because his master beat him, the master could be punished with death. Women captives could become slaves, or they could be taken as wives. But they were not to be used for mere sexual gratification. The gist of the Law must have led righthearted Israelites to treat slaves with respect and kindness, as if these were hired laborers.—Exodus 20:10; 21:12, 16, 26, 27; Leviticus 22:10, 11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

Some Jews voluntarily became slaves to their fellow Jews in order to repay debts. This practice protected people from starvation and actually allowed many to recover from poverty. Furthermore, at key junctures in the Jewish calendar, slaves were to be released if they so desired.* (Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:12) Commenting on these laws regarding slaves, Jewish scholar Moses Mielziner stated that a "slave could never cease to be a man, he was looked upon as a person possessing certain natural human rights, with which the master even could not with impunity interfere." What a stark contrast to the abusive systems of slavery that mar the annals of history!


Slavery and Christians

Slavery was part of the economic system of the Roman Empire, under which first-century Christians lived. Hence, some Christians were slaves, and others had slaves. (1 Corinthians 7:21, 22) But does this mean that disciples of Jesus were abusive slave owners? Hardly! Regardless of what Roman law permitted, we can be confident that Christians did not mistreat those under their authority. The apostle Paul even encouraged Philemon to treat his slave Onesimus, who had become a Christian, as "a brother."
** —Philemon 10-17.

The Bible gives no indication that the enslavement of humans by other humans was part of God's original purpose for mankind. Furthermore, no Bible prophecies allude to humans owning fellow humans through slavery in God's new world. Rather, in that coming Paradise, righteous ones "will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making them tremble."—Micah 4:4.

Clearly, the Bible does not condone the ill-treatment of others in any form. On the contrary, it encourages respect and equality among men. (Acts 10:34, 35) It exhorts humans to treat others the way that they would like to be treated. (Luke 6:31) Moreover, the Bible encourages Christians humbly to view others as superior, regardless of their social standing. (Philippians 2:3) These principles are totally incongruous with abusive forms of slavery practiced by many nations, especially in recent centuries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The fact that provision was made to allow some to remain with their master clearly indicates that Israelite slavery was not abusive.

** Similarly, some Christians today are employers; others are employees. Just as a Christian employer would not abuse those working under him, disciples of Jesus in the first century would have treated servants according to Christian principles.—Matthew 7:12.

[saztronic]

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Here's the King James Version. Not the most reliable translation, I'll grant you, but it illustrates a couple of points. The word "slave" in verse 5 is translated from the Greek word for "bondservant". Bondservants were indeed indentured servants, but under Greek (and Roman) law were subject to the same law and rule as slaves for the duration of their term of indenture. Until their term was over they were, for all intents and puruposes, property. They could be beaten, flogged, raped, or killed, with almost no consequence to the "master".

Please also note that when the above passage uses the word "servant," such as in verse 6, the original Greek is the same word that is translated as "slave" in verse 5 -- the word for "bondservant".

But let's not belabor this one passage. Here are two others from the New Testament:

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

The servant [Again -- the same word in Greek for "bondservant"] will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

[Elros]

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Here's the King James Version. Not the most reliable translation, I'll grant you, but it illustrates a couple of points. The word "slave" in verse 5 is translated from the Greek word for "bondservant". Bondservants were indeed indentured servants, but under Greek (and Roman) law were subject to the same law and rule as slaves for the duration of their term of indenture. Until their term was over they were, for all intents and puruposes, property. They could be beaten, flogged, raped, or killed, with almost no consequence to the "master".

Please also note that when the above passage uses the word "servant," such as in verse 6, the original Greek is the same word that is translated as "slave" in verse 5 -- the word for "bondservant".

But let's not belabor this one passage. Here are two others from the New Testament:

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

The servant [Again -- the same word in Greek for "bondservant"] will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

OK first of all, that is NOT the KJV you are quoting from. It appears to be possibly the NIV. The KJV uses servant in Ephesians, not slave.

Secondly: The verse in Luke that you quoted is reffering to the return of the Lord, and talking about his servants(the people he created). If you read the whole context you will see that very clearly. Any verse can be taken out of context and use in the wrong way. Here is what the verse says in the KJV:

Luke 12
47. And that servant[all humans], which knew his lord's[God's] will, and prepared not himself[for the Lord's coming], neither did according to his will[what God wanted him to do], shall be beaten with many stripes[judged].

48. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Once again, this is not my interpretation of the verse, but what it is talking about if you read the whole context. Jesus liked to speak in parables to illustrate things to his disciples and others.

[saztronic]

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Here's the King James Version. Not the most reliable translation, I'll grant you, but it illustrates a couple of points. The word "slave" in verse 5 is translated from the Greek word for "bondservant". Bondservants were indeed indentured servants, but under Greek (and Roman) law were subject to the same law and rule as slaves for the duration of their term of indenture. Until their term was over they were, for all intents and puruposes, property. They could be beaten, flogged, raped, or killed, with almost no consequence to the "master".

Please also note that when the above passage uses the word "servant," such as in verse 6, the original Greek is the same word that is translated as "slave" in verse 5 -- the word for "bondservant".

But let's not belabor this one passage. Here are two others from the New Testament:

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

The servant [Again -- the same word in Greek for "bondservant"] will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

OK first of all, that is NOT the KJV you are quoting from. It appears to be possibly the NIV. The KJV uses servant in Ephesians, not slave.

Granted. Not the KJV. A little bit sloppy there. I stand by my comments about the original Greek, however.

Secondly: The verse in Luke that you quoted is reffering to the return of the Lord, and talking about his servants(the people he created). If you read the whole context you will see that very clearly. Any verse can be taken out of context and use in the wrong way. Here is what the verse says in the KJV:

Luke 12
47. And that servant[all humans], which knew his lord's[God's] will, and prepared not himself[for the Lord's coming], neither did according to his will[what God wanted him to do], shall be beaten with many stripes[judged].

48. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Once again, this is not my interpretation of the verse, but what it is talking about if you read the whole context. Jesus liked to speak in parables to illustrate things to his disciples and others.

Yes, but isn't it interesting that Jesus uses the imagery of slavery -- and all its concommitant tropes about obedience and punishment -- as the fulcrum of his larger point? One would think there would be a universe full of less offensive images on which to base a cosmological moral lesson. I mean, that's like... I don't know... making a point about the power of faith by killing a tree or something.

But we're gaining very little from this whole discussion, which I'd now like to bring back around to the central issue: The Bible is not unambiguous on the issue of slavery, an issue which most everyone agrees (Nalaris excepted, perhaps) is morally abhorrent. Or, put a different way: whether you think slavery is great or terrible, you can use the Bible to argue for or against it. The Bible is ambiguous on the issue. Do you concede this? That the Bible is ambiguous on the subject of slavery?

I'd be surprised if you did. Because believing what you believe, you can't concede that the Bible is ambiguous on one issue without leaving the door open for the Bible to be ambiguous an any number of issues. Pick your poison. Slavery. Creation. The incompatibility of the Old and New Testaments. The Trinity. Faith vs. Works. Because on any of these topics, we can quote contradictory Bible verses (and interpretations of them) back and forth all day (we've been doing it for a couple weeks already), but all that proves is something you can't allow -- that the Bible is arguable. It is not the end-all, be-all, final word on truth. It's open to interpretation and discussion. No one person's reading of it is superior to another's. It is a living document, visible only when read through the lens of each individual's experience.

[Mafia Salad]

I would have to say that God's intended meaning of it is the superior and only completely accurate reading. Reading the Bible should not be about interpreting what you want out of it because then you can make it mean anything you want. That has cause countless problems in the western world and middle east since before the bible was done being written.

Reading the Bible through the lenses of individual experience can very easily hinder you from understanding any true meaning in the Bible too. The Bible wasn't written to us, it was written to many different people for different reasons 1900 years ago or longer. If you try to read the Bible without understanding the culture and situation surrounding it's writing then you will have an incomplete picture.

The Bible is certainly ambiguous at times. Jesus spoke in parables, which always have a deeper meaning more importaint then the story on the surface. But you cannot carry that idea of ambiguity over into the way you read historical prose or Biblical poetry. Just like you read a poem different then you read an essay you cannot read every book of the bible in the same way. Every book of the Bible was written in an appropriate and understood manner in it's time. Some of the stylistic ideas have died out, but without understanding them you will never completely understand what the Bible has to say.

[deadboy]

I would have to say that God's intended meaning of it is the superior and only completely accurate reading. Reading the Bible should not be about interpreting what you want out of it because then you can make it mean anything you want. That has cause countless problems in the western world and middle east since before the bible was done being written.

Reading the Bible through the lenses of individual experience can very easily hinder you from understanding any true meaning in the Bible too. The Bible wasn't written to us, it was written to many different people for different reasons 1900 years ago or longer. If you try to read the Bible without understanding the culture and situation surrounding it's writing then you will have an incomplete picture.

The Bible is certainly ambiguous at times. Jesus spoke in parables, which always have a deeper meaning more importaint then the story on the surface. But you cannot carry that idea of ambiguity over into the way you read historical prose or Biblical poetry. Just like you read a poem different then you read an essay you cannot read every book of the bible in the same way. Every book of the Bible was written in an appropriate and understood manner in it's time. Some of the stylistic ideas have died out, but without understanding them you will never completely understand what the Bible has to say.

I sense that you all seem to be forgetting one of the greatest problems with the bible that is mainly the cause of all of the misinterpretations. The bible was not written by one person, it was written by a varity of people, and each of those people would have had a slightly different interpretation of Jesus' actions which he would have written down, and not each of them is going to remember every word said anyhow. This means that we are interpreting someone elses interpetation of an event, and having many people's views thrown at us, which leads to a book that is extremely difficult to gain the full meaning from anyway. Besides this, you have to remember that not every book even made it into the bible, only about a tenth of the writings did, and each one of those books each said subtlely different and sometimes unsubtlely different things. This is why the bible can be used as an argument for most issues and appears ambiguous

[Mafia Salad]

I'm not forgetting that at all. The Bible was written over a period of time stretching from around 1450 BC (Possibly earlier) to around 90 AD, in two different languages. If we focus in on the gospel, I think it is a good thing that we have 4 gospels with four different points of view of the life of Jesus to give us a more complete picture, and they all lead you to the same conclusion unless you are looking for something different in them. I believe that they are all true and accurate, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit while still being written by different individuals with different writing styles and vocabulary. And I think they are all the picture we need to really understand what God wants us to understand about the life of Jesus.


I also believe that every book that belongs in the Bible is in the Bible and the books that aren't don't belong in the Bible. Most of the other gospels were written in the second, third, and fourth century by people who never knew people who knew people who knew Jesus. Even if they claim to be from the first century the vocabulary and grammar don’t line up with the Greek used during the 1st century. They have been disregarded as false for centuries until recently when people are giving them credit without ever looking into the history of the manuscripts.

People spend their lives looking for the full meaning, I won’t deny it’s a big book that can be hard to understand. But it isn’t too hard to figure out the basics, they are restated over and over again. And it isn’t too hard to check yourself to make sure you aren’t reading things incorrectly, just look at the context and look for the main points of the passage and book.

[Elros]

Where have you been the last 20 pages Mafia Salad? You are saying exzactly what I believe about the topic, and I could have used you on alot of the other ones because you seem to believe along the same lines as I do. Which besides me and PIE no one else here seems to believe along the same lines.

[Nakranoth]

On a somewhat unrelated note... Elros (and any other people out there who adhere directly to biblical teachings), do you believe that humans (people who are in no way divine) are capable of performing supernatural feats without divine intervention?

[Elros]

On a somewhat unrelated note... Elros (and any other people out there who adhere directly to biblical teachings), do you believe that humans (people who are in no way divine) are capable of performing supernatural feats without divine intervention?

I don't exactly get what your asking. Could you clarify it with an example or something?

[Hannibal The Imbecile 15]

The church teaches that Jesus was no mortal but half man half divine. So he could both feel the pain of humanity and perform miracles. I think that was the answer to what you were asking.

[Nakranoth]

Could a mortal human being, withouth divine help, for example, turn a river to blood or sticks to snake?

[Hannibal The Imbecile 15]

No, Moses was divinely helped, but a science freak would tell you that these things could have happened naturally. Sounds a little far-fetched to me, all these things naturally happening at the same time...

[Nakranoth]

I'm not refering to Moses here, sorry... I'm really just looking for a yes no answer here... Refute my claims after I actually make them, please.