Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!fsks From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: What does it mean to be a Christian? Message-ID: <177@unc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-May-85 15:19:59 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.177 Posted: Wed May 8 15:19:59 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 03:20:34 EDT References: <5802@duke.UUCP> <137@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 35 Xref: watmath net.religion:6854 net.religion.christian:710 Summary: In article orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> From Frank Silberman: >> The pro-slavery Christians ignored the Hebrew laws regulating "slavery". >> Under Mosaic law, a man could sell himself into slavery (e.g. to pay depts) >> but for at most SEVEN YEARS. There was no such thing as lifetime slavery. >> Furthermore, children of slaves were free. Such servitude is more of >> a contractual agreement, reminicient of the status of many Irish immigrants >> when they entered this country. In the Bible, there is no assumption >> of a permanent servant class, race or nation. >> >> This is an example of people reading into the Bible what they want to believe. >> This is why some churches are uncomfortable when laymen try to interpret >> the Bible. No doubt many pro-slavers would have insisted that they received >> their interpretation by divine inspiration. > So does this mean slavery is justified for seven years? We have such "indentured servitude" here in the U.S. For instance, the army will pay for medical school training in exchange for a seven year hitch as a doctor in the service. Once you've accepted, you can't quit until your time is up! I'm not going to debate whether "indentured servitude" is or is not justified in the Bible. My point is that, even WERE it justified, the Bible did NOT justify the type of slavery of the Old South. Some Christians at the time (ignorantly) thought it did. > Or should the interpretation of religion be a living and growing > thing which is not locked into staid dogmas? > tim sevener whuxl!orb That statement is so vague and touchy-feely that I'm not at all sure what you're talking about. Frank Silbermann