[Altaris]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

Nuclear weapons and the threat of mutual destruction may have kept us safe during the Cold War, but the rules have changed.

How many years do you think it will be before a radical Islamic group has access to a nuclear weapon?

Do you think the thought of mutual destruction will be the same deterrent for them that it was for the Soviet Union?

-ArtificialGrape

One of the things I will always remember from my Foreign Affairs class that my teacher said.....(paraphrasing) "During the Cold War, the deterrent of mutually assured destruction worked because the Soviet Union cared about its children"

I completely agree with this. This very comment is also what scares me about the religious zealots, especially the muslims. The muslim terrorist doesn't give a damn about his or his countries children, therefore, the threat of retaliation is meaningless to him.

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by Altaris

One of the things I will always remember from my Foreign Affairs class that my teacher said.....(paraphrasing) "During the Cold War, the deterrent of mutually assured destruction worked because the Soviet Union cared about its children"

I completely agree with this. This very comment is also what scares me about the religious zealots, especially the muslims. The muslim terrorist doesn't give a damn about his or his countries children, therefore, the threat of retaliation is meaningless to him.

This is one of the big differences between Christianity and Islam. To the Christian life should be sacred because Christians should believe that man was made in the image of God therefore they are special and cannot be property like animals can be.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

you can see how this would trickle down to the treatment of women, children and fellow men. To an Islamic his wife and children are his property to do with as he pleases. To a Christian they are the property of God to be cherished as a blessing.

[inertia186]

I believe Jesus is God, Hell is hot, and Forever is a long time.

[NMG26]

Originally Posted by inertia186

I believe Jesus is God, Hell is hot, and Forever is a long time.

Two out of three of your beliefs are fear motivators.

Welcome to GTRI!




.

[inertia186]

Originally Posted by NMG26

Two out of three of your beliefs are fear motivators.

I was afraid someone would notice that.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

This is one of the big differences between Christianity and Islam. To the Christian life should be sacred because Christians should believe that man was made in the image of God therefore they are special and cannot be property like animals can be.

Have you ever tried actually reading the Bible?

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. (Titus 2:9-10)

Just to offer one of many examples.

[inertia186]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Have you ever tried actually reading the Bible?

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. (Titus 2:9-10)

Just to offer one of many examples.

Maybe you are importing chattel slavery into the verse.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by inertia186

Maybe you are importing chattel slavery into the verse.

Please, do explain what you mean.

[inertia186]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Please, do explain what you mean.

Well, the original Greek might be better translated today as bondservant. A bondservant can be described as a slave, but is still very different from chattel slave.

Usually, when we hear "slavery," we imagine chattel slavery.

Bondservants have a debt obligation to their masters. Often, after the debt is paid off, the servant elects to stay with their master.

Under chattel slavery, there is no debt. Slaves are just owned as property like mules and such.

[Japle]

Posted by inertia186:
Well, the original Greek might be better translated today as bondservant. A bondservant can be described as a slave, but is still very different from chattel slave.

Right, I've heard that one before. If it's true, how do you explain:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


That's outright slavery, plain and simple.

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Have you ever tried actually reading the Bible?

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. (Titus 2:9-10)

Just to offer one of many examples.

In all your wisdom why must you always distort everything?

Human slaves were not to be treated as animals. In fact there were serious penalties for mistreatment.

Exodus 21:20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.

[inertia186]

Originally Posted by Japle

Right, I've heard that one before. If it's true, how do you explain:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


That's outright slavery, plain and simple.

And your point?

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by inertia186

Well, the original Greek might be better translated today as bondservant. A bondservant can be described as a slave, but is still very different from chattel slave.

Usually, when we hear "slavery," we imagine chattel slavery.

Bondservants have a debt obligation to their masters. Often, after the debt is paid off, the servant elects to stay with their master.

Under chattel slavery, there is no debt. Slaves are just owned as property like mules and such.

Are you claiming that slaves weren't sold in the ancient world, including in Rome and Palestine, in the same way they were in the American slave markets of the 17th-19th centuries?

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

In all your wisdom why must you always distort everything?

I quoted two verses from the Bible, how is that distortion?

Human slaves were not to be treated as animals. In fact there were serious penalties for mistreatment.

Exodus 21:20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.

Who's distorting? What's the next verse?

but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. (Exodus 21:21)

and what's the punishment if someone kills another person's animal? So that we can see the difference between slaves and animals.

[inertia186]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Are you claiming that slaves weren't sold in the ancient world, including in Rome and Palestine, in the same way they were in the American slave markets of the 17th-19th centuries?

Correct, they were not sold in the same way.

American slave markets did not have any notion of the debt owed by the slave. There was no limit of any kind associated with the slave as related by the debt they owed. They could never pay off their debt because it wasn't based on any debt obligation.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by inertia186

Correct, they were not sold in the same way.

You're completely wrong. They were sold exactly the same way. It is true that slaves could, with the permission of their owners, earn money and even buy their freedom in some cases, but that was neither required nor even the norm throughout the majority of Roman history.

American slave markets did not have any notion of the debt owed by the slave. There was no limit of any kind associated with the slave as related by the debt they owed. They could never pay off their debt because it wasn't based on any debt obligation.

It is true that some slaves became enslaved as a result of debts, but that was hardly the only route to slavery. Read Caesar's The Gallic Wars, he enslaved entire towns and tribes, the Veneti for example.

[inertia186]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

You're completely wrong. They were sold exactly the same way. It is true that slaves could, with the permission of their owners, earn money and even buy their freedom in some cases, but that was neither required nor even the norm throughout the majority of Roman history.
It is true that some slaves became enslaved as a result of debts, but that was hardly the only route to slavery. Read Caesar's The Gallic Wars, he enslaved entire towns and tribes, the Veneti for example.

The way this thread was going, I thought we were including more than just Rome in "the ancient world."

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by inertia186

The way this thread was going, I thought we were including more than just Rome in "the ancient world."

How does that change anything? You claim slavery in the ancient world was different than slavery in the United States. You claimed that ancient slaves were bondservants, not property. This was incorrect. I provided the example of Roman slaves captured in war.

Even if we take the "ancient world" as more expansive than just Rome, the fact remains that there were slaves that you describe as chattel in Rome, which was part of the ancient world, which renders your initial proposition false.

[Japle]

inertia186 is flopping like a fish on the dock.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by inertia186

Well, the original Greek might be better translated today as bondservant. A bondservant can be described as a slave, but is still very different from chattel slave.

Usually, when we hear "slavery," we imagine chattel slavery.

Bondservants have a debt obligation to their masters. Often, after the debt is paid off, the servant elects to stay with their master.

Under chattel slavery, there is no debt. Slaves are just owned as property like mules and such.

If this is true, why was Onesimus in prison?

[inertia186]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

How does that change anything? You claim slavery in the ancient world was different than slavery in the United States. You claimed that ancient slaves were bondservants, not property. This was incorrect. I provided the example of Roman slaves captured in war.

Even if we take the "ancient world" as more expansive than just Rome, the fact remains that there were slaves that you describe as chattel in Rome, which was part of the ancient world, which renders your initial proposition false.

Ok, TIL that all ancient slavery was chattel slavery.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by inertia186

Ok, TIL that all ancient slavery was chattel slavery.

I didn't say that, did I? Hopefully, you have learned that chattel slavery did exist in the ancient world, if you were not already aware of that fact. If you have evidence for one type of slavery being rejected by either Biblical command or Christian practice, please do share it. As far as I know, no one knows the nature of Onesimus' slavery and he was perhaps the most famous slave of Christian accounts.

[inertia186]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

I didn't say that, did I? Hopefully, you have learned that chattel slavery did exist in the ancient world, if you were not already aware of that fact. If you have evidence for one type of slavery being rejected by either Biblical command or Christian practice, please do share it. As far as I know, no one knows the nature of Onesimus' slavery and he was perhaps the most famous slave of Christian accounts.

So you're saying there might have been bondservants (slavery by way of economic circumstances) as well as chattel slaves (slavery by way of military conquest) in the ancient world?

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by inertia186

So you're saying there might have been bondservants (slavery by way of economic circumstances) as well as chattel slaves (slavery by way of military conquest) in the ancient world?

No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I said the exact opposite of that:

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

It is true that some slaves became enslaved as a result of debts, but that was hardly the only route to slavery. Read Caesar's The Gallic Wars, he enslaved entire towns and tribes, the Veneti for example.

On the other hand, you did claim that there weren't slave markets in the ancient world comparable to those in America:

Originally Posted by inertia186

Correct, they were not sold in the same way.

American slave markets did not have any notion of the debt owed by the slave. There was no limit of any kind associated with the slave as related by the debt they owed. They could never pay off their debt because it wasn't based on any debt obligation.

[inertia186]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I said the exact opposite of that:

On the other hand, you did claim that there weren't slave markets in the ancient world comparable to those in America:

I said that slaves weren't bought and sold in the same way because I contend that there were at least two kinds of slavery, as opposed to the more modern historical occurrence.

I find it baffling that there were no bondservants in any ancient context. Apparently I just made them up out of thin air.