The Problem with Christians

[Huggy Bear]

That word was translated from greek word Aion from which we get the word eon.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/.../aion.html

Aion
Definition

   1. for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
   2. the worlds, uerse
   3. period of time, age

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." - Hebrews 11-3

The funny thing is, I've been telling you guys all along about using translations other than the KJV; but noooo the KJV doesn't fit your guys agenda because it doesn't use the word "slave" or "slavery" but uses the word servant, indicating indentured servitude NOT chattel slavery; now all of the sudden you want to take issue with how a word is translated when you were never concerned with that before?

You must define chattel slavery some other way than the rest of us, then, Hugs. Just because the English word "bondmen" is used in place of slavery doesn't change the fact that it immediately goes on to define what it means, and what it means is chattel slavery for anyone who's not a fellow Israelite (to whom the Indentured Servitude rules to which you've referred would apply). 

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

http://biblehub.com/kjv/leviticus/25.htm

Not to get off topic, but Hebrew law explicitly forbade anyone to force a person into servitude without their consent.

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. - Exodus 21:16

http://www.gotquestions.org/bondservant.html

In Roman times, the term bondservant or slave could refer to someone who voluntarily served others. But it usually referred to one who was held in a permanent position of servitude. Under Roman law, a bondservant was considered the owner’s personal property. Slaves essentially had no rights and could even be killed with impunity by their owners.

The Hebrew word for “bondservant,” ‘ebed, had a similar connotation. However, the Mosaic Law allowed an indentured servant to become a bondservant voluntarily: “If the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life” (Exodus 21:5-6).

Similarly, I'm trying to figure out what the difference between your translation of the aion as "worlds" rather than "the universe" would be, since the definition you posted seems to indicate that the word refers both to great amounts of time as well as worlds... in other words, the universe. (Literally, I can't figure out why that's being quibbled over! Is there a semantic or theological point, there?)

The word "universe" would only describe what is in our observable universe it wouldn't include other realities which aren't apparent to our 5 senses, where as Aeon would encompass everything seen and unseen.

hence:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. - Hebrews 11-3

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You must define chattel slavery some other way than the rest of us, then, Hugs. Just because the English word "bondmen" is used in place of slavery doesn't change the fact that it immediately goes on to define what it means, and what it means is chattel slavery for anyone who's not a fellow Israelite (to whom the Indentured Servitude rules to which you've referred would apply). 

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

http://biblehub.com/kjv/leviticus/25.htm

Not to get off topic, but Hebrew law explicitly forbade anyone to force a person into servitude without their consent.

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. - Exodus 21:16

http://www.gotquestions.org/bondservant.html

In Roman times, the term bondservant or slave could refer to someone who voluntarily served others. But it usually referred to one who was held in a permanent position of servitude. Under Roman law, a bondservant was considered the owner’s personal property. Slaves essentially had no rights and could even be killed with impunity by their owners.

The Hebrew word for “bondservant,” ‘ebed, had a similar connotation. However, the Mosaic Law allowed an indentured servant to become a bondservant voluntarily: “If the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life” (Exodus 21:5-6).

Yes, except it wasn't written in Roman times. You're over 1000 years off. You're also completely ignoring, by jumping into the semantics and "connotations" of the words, that it explicitly says that you can own their children and will them to your children, that you own them for life.

The verses you cite in "defense" of this practice are part of the Indentured Servitude practice (which was also practiced, in the Biblical form of six-years-of-voluntary-slavery-then-out, here in the USA, and is how many white people got over here from Europe, while Native Americans and African Americans were subjected to the other sort of slavery, chattel slavery, per Biblical instructions... it's appalling to me that you pretend not to notice the difference), as you can see if you read all the verses in context:

1 `And these [are] the judgments which thou dost set before them:
2 `When thou buyest a Hebrew servant -- six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought; 3 if by himself he cometh in, by himself he goeth out; if he [is] owner of a wife, then his wife hath gone out with him;
4 if his lord give to him a wife, and she hath borne to him sons or daughters -- the wife and her children are her lord's, and he goeth out by himself.
5 `And if the servant really say: I have loved my lord, my wife, and my sons -- I do not go out free; 6 then hath his lord brought him nigh unto God, and hath brought him nigh unto the door, or unto the side-post, and his lord hath bored his ear with an awl, and he hath served him -- to the age.

(Exodus 21, KJV)

The "And he who stealeth a man, and hath sold him, and he hath been found in his hand, is certainly put to death." verse, a few lines later, is obviously a prohibition about kidnapping, even though it's for the purpose of turning the person into a slave. The Exodus 21 list is about things Israelites can/can't do to one another, and has nothing to do with our discussion about foreign slaves. You really REALLY need to watch Rob's video, because you sound just like the god depicted in that video right now.

And by the way, the article you cited starts with these lines:

A bondservant is a slave. In some Bibles the word bondservant is the translation of the Greek word doulos, which means “one who is subservient to, and entirely at the disposal of, his master; a slave.” Other translations use the word slave or servant.

In Roman times, the term bondservant or slave could refer to someone who voluntarily served others. But it usually referred to one who was held in a permanent position of servitude.

Emphasis, of course, my own.

[Huggy Bear]

Not to get off topic, but Hebrew law explicitly forbade anyone to force a person into servitude without their consent.


http://www.gotquestions.org/bondservant.html

Yes, except it wasn't written in Roman times. You're over 1000 years off. You're also completely ignoring, by jumping into the semantics and "connotations" of the words, that it explicitly says that you can own their children and will them to your children, that you own them for life.

First of all, I included the Roman example to show how it contrasted against the Hebrew example, the law of Moses still applied in roman times after all.

Secondly, in those days women and children required a male protector or guardian. this tradition is still simulated in modern marriage ceremonies where the Father gives away his daughter to the groom, relinquishing guardianship.

If you were a bond servant, you were in no position to provide for a family, that's why you sold yourself into servitude in the first place. If by some miracle you were able to afford to pay for your wife and children's freedom, then you were free to do so.

The verses you cite in "defense" of this practice are part of the Indentured Servitude practice (which was also practiced, in the Biblical form of six-years-of-voluntary-slavery-then-out, here in the USA, and is how many white people got over here from Europe, while Native Americans and African Americans were subjected to the other sort of slavery, chattel slavery, per Biblical instructions... it's appalling to me that you pretend not to notice the difference), as you can see if you read all the verses in context:

1 `And these [are] the judgments which thou dost set before them:
2 `When thou buyest a Hebrew servant -- six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought; 3 if by himself he cometh in, by himself he goeth out; if he [is] owner of a wife, then his wife hath gone out with him;
4 if his lord give to him a wife, and she hath borne to him sons or daughters -- the wife and her children are her lord's, and he goeth out by himself.
5 `And if the servant really say: I have loved my lord, my wife, and my sons -- I do not go out free; 6 then hath his lord brought him nigh unto God, and hath brought him nigh unto the door, or unto the side-post, and his lord hath bored his ear with an awl, and he hath served him -- to the age.

(Exodus 21, KJV)

The "And he who stealeth a man, and hath sold him, and he hath been found in his hand, is certainly put to death." verse, a few lines later, is obviously a prohibition about kidnapping, even though it's for the purpose of turning the person into a slave. The Exodus 21 list is about things Israelites can/can't do to one another, and has nothing to do with our discussion about foreign slaves. You really REALLY need to watch Rob's video, because you sound just like the god depicted in that video right now.

And by the way, the article you cited starts with these lines:

A bondservant is a slave. In some Bibles the word bondservant is the translation of the Greek word doulos, which means “one who is subservient to, and entirely at the disposal of, his master; a slave.” Other translations use the word slave or servant.

In Roman times, the term bondservant or slave could refer to someone who voluntarily served others. But it usually referred to one who was held in a permanent position of servitude.

Emphasis, of course, my own.

What you guys don't get is that this system existed well before the Hebrews, and well before any law of Moses. If you remember Jacob agreed to 14 years of servitude to marry the daughters of Laban because he couldn't afford a dowry.

What is amazing to me is how you guys judge a society that existed purely on a trade based system, in which LABOR is a tradable commodity, by modern day standards, and really if you look closely you'll find that nothing has changed all that much.

If you want to buy a house, your obligated to work and pay off that mortgage for 30 years before YOU "own" it, how is that any different from Jacob volunteering to serve 14 years to pay off dowries? Nothing, except in the case of the bible, you provided labor in exchange for a house, food, protection and got a wife that you didn't pay a dowry for, and in your mind this is an atrocity?

If I owned a ranch and went and got homeless people to work on it voluntarily for room and board; would you consider that to be evil?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, IDK, the difference might be that the bank owns the house, rather than owning me?  For starters. In my mind, owning people is an atrocity whereas owning a house is not, sure. You disagree? Evil or not, your scheme is likely illegal. Such operations are under extreme scrutiny for good reason - though..if you play your cards right you can get away with almost anything...regardless of it's shady ethical status.

Lay all of that aside, the strongest rebuttal in defense of god that you can manufacture is a tq........? That's disappointing. Seems to me like god and his little systems ought to hinge on more than just what other people were doing, had done, or still do? Does that -actually- answer a moral or ethical criticism? You take offense at the idea of holding god or the things god condones to today's standards...why...are they too high....for a god?

[abaris]

Just ignore the bible barrage already. It's as meaningful as quoting from a volume of Mickey Mouse.

[Huggy Bear]

Oh, IDK, the difference might be that the bank owns the house, rather than owning me?  For starters.  In my mind, owning people is an atrocity whereas owning a house is not, sure.  You disagree?  Evil or not, your scheme is likely illegal.  Such operations are under extreme scrutiny for good reason.

What part of "Hebrews didn't have a system of chattel slavery" don't you understand? If one was not allowed to force another into servitude, then that means it was on a voluntary basis.

If a person wants to sell himself into servitude, THAT'S HIS CHOICE; and I thought you people were all about freedom of choice, apparently it's only acceptable when it comes to the killing of unborn children.

As for the house your personhood is not owned but your labor is, and some employer will own it for the next 30 years, unless you want to be one the the homeless people aforementioned.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

No. No, no, no. No! You're the one who's refusing to see past the blinders you're wearing on this subject. It was NOT voluntary, and it was exactly the same system employed (reconstructed along Biblical lines) in the United States from the 1600s to the 1860s. Your own web-cite explains quite clearly:

In Roman times, the term bondservant or slave could refer to someone who voluntarily served others. But it usually referred to one who was held in a permanent position of servitude. Under Roman law, a bondservant was considered the owner’s personal property. Slaves essentially had no rights and could even be killed with impunity by their owners.

The Hebrew word for “bondservant,” ‘ebed, had a similar connotation.

[Emphasis mine.]

We are NOT TALKING ABOUT voluntary service. You even misquoted the website. That's the exact phrasing from the website. 'Ebed is said to have a "similar connotation" to the Roman bondservant system, in which a bondservant/slave was "considered the owner's personal property", "essentially had no rights", and "could even be killed with impunity by their owners". (I suppose it's good, then, that the Hebrews at least prohibited beating a slave all the way to death... as long as he didn't die for a couple of days, of course. Progressives, they were!)

It was not a voluntary system for most people. Yes, there was also a system by which you could sell yourself into the system, in order to pay off debts, but that does not mean that the forced servitude was always or even usually voluntary! A good example of the "sold self to pay off debts" is the story of Varro, in the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand...but it also shows the many who were forced into the life by violence and conquest.

I mean, fuck, dude, this isn't hard!

You worship a "god" (that is, of course, what the leaders of men who made it up call this fictional character) that not only condones slavery, but exhorts people to be slaves in their attitudes. What could better serve the masters of this earth than a religion that teaches people that being a slave is a good thing?

[Huggy Bear]

No. No, no, no. No! You're the one who's refusing to see past the blinders you're wearing on this subject. It was NOT voluntary, and it was exactly the same system employed (reconstructed along Biblical lines) in the United States from the 1600s to the 1860s. Your own web-cite explains quite clearly:

In Roman times, the term bondservant or slave could refer to someone who voluntarily served others. But it usually referred to one who was held in a permanent position of servitude. Under Roman law, a bondservant was considered the owner’s personal property. Slaves essentially had no rights and could even be killed with impunity by their owners.

The Hebrew word for “bondservant,” ‘ebed, had a similar connotation.

[Emphasis mine.]

We are NOT TALKING ABOUT voluntary service. You even misquoted the website. That's the exact phrasing from the website. 'Ebed is said to have a "similar connotation" to the Roman bondservant system, in which a bondservant/slave was "considered the owner's personal property", "essentially had no rights", and "could even be killed with impunity by their owners". (I suppose it's good, then, that the Hebrews at least prohibited beating a slave all the way to death... as long as he didn't die for a couple of days, of course. Progressives, they were!)

It was not a voluntary system for most people. Yes, there was also a system by which you could sell yourself into the system, in order to pay off debts, but that does not mean that the forced servitude was always or even usually voluntary! A good example of the "sold self to pay off debts" is the story of Varro, in the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand...but it also shows the many who were forced into the life by violence and conquest.

I mean, fuck, dude, this isn't hard!

You worship a "god" (that is, of course, what the leaders of men who made it up call this fictional character) that not only condones slavery, but exhorts people to be slaves in their attitudes. What could better serve the masters of this earth than a religion that teaches people that being a slave is a good thing?

It was NOT the exact same system

The Hebrew word for “bondservant,” ‘ebed, had a similar connotation. However, the Mosaic Law allowed an indentured servant to become a bondservant voluntarily: “If the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life” (Exodus 21:5-6).

Similar means "resembling without being identical".

All servants were to go free if they wished in the year of jubilee, unless a servant chose not to and declared of his own volition that he wanted to become a slave, then he had a hole bored into his ear marking him as such for the rest of his life.

Also you couldn't kill a servant with impunity either, because Hebrew law had something called the avenger of blood.

The authorities would punish murder by putting the offender to death, but in a manslaughter case the family of the victim had a right to go and kill the offender, unless the offender made it to one of the cities of refuge.

Hence why there is no official punishment for beating a servant and him dying a few days later... that is manslaughter not murder.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You know that the "Year of Jubilee" was every 50 years, right? No coincidence they let their fields lie fallow the same year they free all the servants, eh? Heh.

Seriously, though... consider what a 50-year prison sentence would feel like, if you were locked up right now.

Consider that the only reason you're in prison (in this example) is that American soldiers came to your country (say, Canada), killed most of the men of your town, stole the women, knocked you out but didn't kill you as you fought, and grabbed you as part of the spoils of war, then sold you to CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) to work in our melon fields in the irrigated deserts of California for the next 30-50 years. Imagine that these Americans pointed to their holy book and said "God told us to do thus".

Just like that, it happened; this is what the Israelites (and a lot of other ancient peoples) did to a lot of other peoples... that's why it specifies that the Israelites must not rule over one another "with rigor", the way they do to people of other races. Get it?

While you sit here and quibble over whether the American, Hebrew, and Roman slavery systems were identical (they weren't) or merely resembled one another (they did), you're missing the big picture: the people who claim to speak for God have condoned a system that is appalling even by modern standards, even though our modern system is also far from perfect... we're not great, but we KNOW that it's wrong to own human beings as your personal property, even if you're eventually forced to set them free and even if there are limits on how badly you could treat your slaves.

From Wikipedia:

Southern slave codes did make willful killing of a slave illegal in most cases. For example, in 1791 the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder, unless done in resisting or under moderate correction. Historian Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was “convicted of cruel treatment,” the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."

[Internal citations omitted.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

Seriously, Huggy, watch Rob's posted video. It's not very long, it's funny, and it brings up the point we're trying to make. If you claim Book X was written by Infinitely Wise Moral Being Y, then we need to examine this claim and see if it holds weight. You're quibbling with us about why it was not as bad as the slavery systems we universally (nowadays) deplore, and we're asking you WHY WOULD THE ETERNAL CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE ALLOW HIS PEOPLE TO OWN THEIR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY FOR ONE FREAKIN' DAY!?!?

[Huggy Bear]

WHY WOULD THE ETERNAL CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE ALLOW HIS PEOPLE TO OWN THEIR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY FOR ONE FREAKIN' DAY!?!?

I want to focus on this point for a second.

God put us here under free moral agency. A person is free to do as he chooses, and that means to sell himself in to servitude if he so wishes.

Again servants were NOT property! Chattel slavery was always involuntary.

Eleazar was Abraham's servant and was also his heir, does that sound like property to you? Since when did property have a right to inherit anything?


Say you have one person that owns lots of land (a place to provide housing) and crops / livestock (food), and you have others that own nothing but need food and shelter, and are willing to work for it, except currency doesn't exist.

What would you propose?