Dave, The basic concept of slavery is that a person is the property of another person. The slave owner "uses" the slave much like the owner of a tool or animal uses that tool or animal to do work. In this sense, I see the concept of slavery as having application in colonial America as well as in ancient times. Also, indentured servants would be slaves on this classification. Again, the crucial feature of slavery is that one person is the property of another person, however they got this status and regardless of if the status is permanant. The modern West has stressed fundamental rights, which undermines the possibility of one person being the property of another. I don't see this kind of mindset in the Bible: one of humans having fundamental rights. So at this level the scripture is fine with one person being the property of another, and hence, is fine with slavery. Slavery in the West -- which did include moral wrongdoing within it (esp. rape, murder, and cruelty) -- is of course wrong. But this is seperate from condemning the basic concept of slavery.
Rob, In your initial post, you mentioned my name twice in ways that had passive suggestions. First, you suggested that I hold no authority as an arbiter of arguments, which is false. Everyone does, so long as they understand the normativity of argumentation and apply it correctly. You went on to describe your method of subjective interpretation that is isolated from the rational scrutiny of others; and you implied strongly that it is a perfectly correct and good method of interpretation. Thus, since I disagree strongly, I went after your method and tried to offer support that it is anti-Christian, as I think all subjective interpretation isolated from the rational scrutiny of others is. Yes, if I'm right, you are on the wrong side of epistemic normativity. But at times, we are all on the wrong side of it. This is why we need the community to hold us in check. The second time you mentioned me: you had just offered a rationale for a position that would undercut my position on slavery. Then it appears that you acknowledge that the rationale probably doesn't hold under rational scrutiny, and tell me not to go after your rationale (fitting with your initial suggestion that it's okay to hold a subjective interpretation or view isolated from the rational scrutiny of others). So it really looks like you hold (or held) a position like this: "I can hold any position I like, so long as it reflects my current beliefs and as long as it seems that Jesus is fine with my holding it. It is not okay for people to challenge my personal beliefs. My personal beliefs are between Jesus and me." I went after you and your position because it is my pet peeve. This kind of antirational isolation leads people to think that Christianity is subjective and non-rational, when our roots stem from Jesus and Paul, who were as objective and rational as you can get. Jesus gave massive evidence for his Messiahship and reasoned frequently with people (from the time he was a kid until after he rose from the dead). Paul argued from the scripture and from his experience for everything he asserted. He even rationally defended he apostleship. He didn't defend it on subjective, non-rational grounds. Rather, he gave evidence for his apostleship and rested it on reason. The subjective non-rational method is also at odds with Jesus' and the Apostles' teachings concerning discipleship and false teaching. The apostles specifically told us not to listen to teachings that were contrary to theirs. But they definitely told us to listen to teachings that were expositions of theirs. That is why I was alarmed when you shrugged off what I said in the last thread. It's not as if you explained why my positions on these topics are not correct. You just shrugged off what I had said like a kid who shrugs of his parents' or principal's authority by saying, "I don't accept your authority and there's nothing you can do about it." In a sense, I could care less if you accept my "authority," but in another sense I do -- for I have a calling and a vocation to be a Christian philosopher. And as a Christian believer, I have the authority to "preach the Word; to be prepared in season and out of season; to *correct*, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction." You may criticize me for not being patient or sensitive or encouraging, but this is separate from saying I don't have the authority to correct and to rebuke with precision and care. I respect your calling to teach, and I don't accept or reject your teachings by fiat. Instead, I try to engage you on rational grounds if I disagree. It definitely looked like you wanted to reject what I had to say by fiat, so I engaged you with reason and with the ethics of argument, trying to persuade you back into a mindset to where we can discuss things. With all this said, I still think that it is clear that slavery is not condemned in scripture. Of course, there is an ethics of slavery in the Bible, but again, this fact presupposes that the institution of slavery, per se, is okay. Equally clear and true is that the Bible does not teach against killing, but only murder, which is unjustified killing. For example, the Bible does not speak out against a just war. Rob, those, like you, who see the tension between our culture's position on slavery and God's position on slavery should side with the Bible. There doesn't seem to be grounds for a crisis of conscience about this issue. It just turns out that, according to Judeo-Christian Divine Command Theory, people can be property of other people, and hence, slavery is permitted. And this is the opposite of what our culture typically believes -- partly, I think, because they conjure up morally wrong instances of slavery when they report that slavery is wrong. That, and our culture glorifies freedom, and without argument, assumes that humans are by nature free. This assumption is deeply dubious on several levels: philosophically, theologically, and psychologically. Concerning the conjuring up of negative images of slavery, I definitely think that we are not looking at the institution of slavery as a whole and what it essentially is. Essentially, slavery means that we are not our own, but are the property of another person. In this sense, Paul is right that we are slaves to Christ and to God. We are not our own; we are His. By analogy, human slaves are not their own, but are the property of their master. Now, just like we are slaves to God, some humans were slaves to earthly masters. And just as God can righteously be our Master, early masters can righteously be masters of slaves. Indeed, to claim that all instances of slavery is morally wrong is to indict God of moral wrongdoing. Think about it. God is a person and we are God's property; so technically we are His slave. So if all instances of slavery is wrong, God is in the wrong for having us as slaves. Here is an excellent sermon on the topic of being Slaves to Christ, by John MacArthur: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-321.htm Also, by way of a side note, Jesus does speak approvingly of slavery: For example, in Matthew 6:24 Jesus said this, "No man can be a slave to two masters." I anticipate that you all will try to show that not all versions say "slave" but MacArthur addresses this issue and goes to the Greek and the Godspeed translation to demonstrate that Jesus probably was talking about slaves. I'll get Rusty and Hugh's take on this passage, since they are Greek scholars. But Godspeed should suffice for now. Bobby On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:28 PM, D C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I haven't done any great study myself, but remember reading a study > that seemed to assert that "slavery" often mentioned in the Bible is > poorly interpreted from multiple roots, where sometimes it means out > and out slavery as we are used to the definition, while other times it > is referring to indentured servants of some sort as Rob described. > However, even "slavery" as it relates to the Israelites in Egypt > doesn't have equal connotation to the slavery we think of from our > country's history. They were more like a usurped or conquered nation. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crosspointe Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
