Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: djohnson@ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: questions about slavery. Message-ID: Date: 9 Mar 91 06:12:35 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: CSE Dept., UC San Diego Lines: 22 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu >> I'm curious to know because not only was it traditionaly acceptable >> to own slaves (and concubines) in the Old Testament, it was actualy >> condoned by GOD Himself in the laws passed from His mouth to Moses in >> Exodus (if God did not approve slavery He would not have created laws >> concerning their treatment or maltreatment and the sale of them etc...). >> Futher Paul states simply that you are to treat your slaves well. He does >> not disapprove of the idea of one human being 'owned' by another. Well, logically I don't see the conclusion that God and Paul did not disapprove of slavery... Being told to treat one's slaves well, does not imply that owning slaves is ok. In the ancient times slavery was a much more accepted thing, so it is natural to assume that many of God's people would have slaves. The laws on treating slaves raised the status of these slaves tremendously. The notion of a "hired hand" was probably rare. Paul's assertion may have been considered pretty radical by some non-Jewish groups. (and just because your father took you aside before the prom and explained about birth control, doesn't mean he approved of premarital relations) -- Darin Johnson djohnson@ucsd.edu - Political correctness is Turing undecidable.