Religion

[Pie]

Spartacus tried to start a slave rebellion. He succeeded in starting it. He and six thousand of his comrades died of crucifixtion. At the time, the Roman Empire was too strong, but God knew that it would be destroyed by barbarians eventually. A revolt against an Empire that strong was simply foolish, a waste of lives. Besides that, havoc and discord are God's enemies: he likes order. Preferably a benevolent, kind order, like the one he intends to set up eventually. But better the Roman Empire than Feudal Europe.

Paul is not specifically saying 'slavery is great!', he's just saying 'slavery is better than death!'. Of course, I don't know positively. But it does make sense.

Hehehe. this is.. verry... disturbing. I disagree. order that supports breaking any of god's commandments is verry bad. That's like saying that god likes the mafia.

oh, and on the issue of slavery, look at the sight i have given.

[Nakranoth]

'slavery is better than death!'

I know that there were at least a few slaves in history that would vehemently disagree with that statement... Is a life not your own to live worth living? I'd prefer death to permanant imprisonment. Especially with this newfound post-death salvation thing that's been going around.

There are other "more important" points I could make here too, but neither "side" will ever convence the other of anything important... different foundations of faiths will not support incongruous information, no matter how well supporrted.

[Nosajimiki]

Okay Pie, as you insisted I read the link that differentiates Hebrew slavery from American slavery.

1) The words "whether he be bond or free" indicates that he is not only reffering to those who sold themselves into slavery, but also those who were sold or captured. It also sais that masters had the freedom to dissipline thier slaves as they saw fit, so what ever freedoms they may technically have had, were subject to thier masters' wims.

2) There are enough examples in the Bible alone of concubines, the way the Egyptians handled the Jews, etc to prove that slaves were often abused, wether they had certain other rights or not. So in the Hebrew world, these immoral things were understood to be aspects of slavery, even if it's specific points were somewhat different than Western Slavery.

3) It also mentions the Roman Empire and Greece as being the two primary exceptions in the ancient world to how slaves are aquired. In ancient Greece and Rome, slaves were often captured in war and subject to similar lack of freedom as American slaves. In ancient Greece, the Spartans used slaves as farmers just like the Americans. In Rome, they were often forced to fight to the death as gladiators. Paul was a Roman offical before becomeing an apostle so he would have been very familiar with Roman and Greek deffinitions of bondage, yet he made no acceptions to his policy for them.

This said, there was not enough difference between American slavery, and what Paul would have understood to have ment bondage to indicate that he did not intend that American slaves would have been wrong to disobey thier masters.

[Nalaris]

America was easily the hardest on its slaves in comparison to any other nation in the world. America's treatment of slaves was so abominabal that God saw fit to destroy it, even though it risked destabilizing his fledgling Church's country.

[Elros]

America was easily the hardest on its slaves in comparison to any other nation in the world.

I would have to disagree. Study into slavery a little more before making such a broad statement. Yes America was bad, but there have been worse.

[Nosajimiki]

1. Elros is right *takes a swig of water to clean a funny taste out his mouth*.

2. Last I checked, the deaths of hundreads of thousands of Americans acting on thier own consciences in opposition to the popular interpretation of the Bible at the time stoped it, not some divine mirical. So the only way you can make that claim is if God intentionally made our country sceptical of the Bible to fulfill a greater good which would go back to the old point that faith and morality are not intrinsicly related.

[Pie]

Okay Pie, as you insisted I read the link that differentiates Hebrew slavery from American slavery.

1) The words "whether he be bond or free" indicates that he is not only reffering to those who sold themselves into slavery, but also those who were sold or captured. It also sais that masters had the freedom to dissipline thier slaves as they saw fit, so what ever freedoms they may technically have had, were subject to thier masters' wims.

2) There are enough examples in the Bible alone of concubines, the way the Egyptians handled the Jews, etc to prove that slaves were often abused, wether they had certain other rights or not. So in the Hebrew world, these immoral things were understood to be aspects of slavery, even if it's specific points were somewhat different than Western Slavery.

3) It also mentions the Roman Empire and Greece as being the two primary exceptions in the ancient world to how slaves are aquired. In ancient Greece and Rome, slaves were often captured in war and subject to similar lack of freedom as American slaves. In ancient Greece, the Spartans used slaves as farmers just like the Americans. In Rome, they were often forced to fight to the death as gladiators. Paul was a Roman offical before becomeing an apostle so he would have been very familiar with Roman and Greek deffinitions of bondage, yet he made no acceptions to his policy for them.

This said, there was not enough difference between American slavery, and what Paul would have understood to have ment bondage to indicate that he did not intend that American slaves would have been wrong to disobey thier masters.

I have my suspitions on this answere... but i will cunsult my mother before answering.

[Nalaris]

I suppose I should've been more specific. God allowed the destruction of slavery, although in retrospect I suppose that statement was hasty and most likely untrue (I was multi-tasking when I wrote it). However I've never heard of slave conditions worse than the ones in early 19th century America, and that's including ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, China and the modern European nations.

[Nakranoth]

Ever heard of ancient Sparta? For a Spartan boy to become a man, he had to ambush and kill a slave. Yeah, American slavery was Brutal, let me tell you.

[Nosajimiki]

not to mention they killed any slave that showed any level of reasonable intellegence or physical prowess. Atleast the Americans were capitalistic enough to let the strong ones live.

Another often looked over fact is that American slaves were very rarely made to do dangerious work, and were actually very rarely intentionally killed. Slaves were expinsive, so most plantation owners tryed to keep them alive so long as they were able to pay for themselves. It's often argued that the Irish immigrants had it worse because unlike slaves, they often had nowhere to live, could not afford regular meals, and b/c what money did have to be spent on them was spent for labour/time instead of a large upfront investment, they were ussally made to preform more dangerious work than the slaves such as digging the cannals etc. So not only did they have it better than some other slaves, they had it better than some other citizens.

[Elros]

Also look at the Roman slaves. Many of them were put into Arenas against Gladiators and tigers ect... They many times were put in there under impossible odds and pretty much just slaughtered for show.

[Nalaris]

I admit I overlooked Sparta, but to be frank I'd rather be a galdiator than an American slave. Also, blacks were used to dig canals, as there was a big deal about keeping the two labor groups seperate during the canal digging.

[Nosajimiki]

Not in the US. Or if so, it was either very rare, or they were using free blacks. Everything I've ever read on the era specifically sais that plantation owners almost never used thier slaves for hazadious labour. It's also part of why the North didnt heavily use slaves b/c the factories were so dangerious it was more econmicly feasable to use child labour and women. If they lost a hand or something, they could just hire someone else, no profit lost

And how is being a gladiator better than being a farmer or house keeper? Gladiators were no more free than american slaves. If they didn't do thier "work" they were tourchered and exicuted all the same. Thier cells were doubtfully any better place to live than a slave barraks. If anything, being a gladiator is even worse than being a Spartan slave.

[Pie]

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

he never sais that slavery is good. he dosen't even use the word slave, or slavery. he sais servants.and masters are anyone who is above you, as an emporer is above a king, or as god is above the emperor. And I for one don't think that this has anything to do with slavery, and challeng you to try and put up evidence that sais that it is.

[Elros]

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

he never sais that slavery is good. he dosen't even use the word slave, or slavery. he sais servants.and masters are anyone who is above you, as an emporer is above a king, or as god is above the emperor. And I for one don't think that this has anything to do with slavery, and challeng you to try and put up evidence that sais that it is.

Ok here is another viewpoint. I am not disagreeing with you PIE, I am just adding to it.

Most of the "servants" back then were not slaves unwillfully, but rather indentured servants. That means that they would willingly give themselves to be a servant for so many years and then in the end they would recieve a payment. Usually a plot of land with a house ect... So, these were not slaves as you think of when we say the word, but they were contracted servants whoch willingly signed a certain amount of thier lives away to a "master" or owner. So what Paul was saying is that they needed to serve their "masters"(or contracted employers) happily.