Monday, January 02, 2006

Slavery – Information Please.

Now before I get myself set up as acting like an authority on the subject, I will begin by saying….”As understood by me”….and in my opinion.

“Slavery has existed on nearly every continent, including Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas, and throughout most of recorded history. The ancient Greeks and Romans accepted the institution of slavery, as did the Mayas, Incas, Aztecs, and Chinese. Europeans began importing slaves from Africa to the New World beginning in the 16th century.” - Encyclopedia Britannica

Who again did the "importing" according to the Encyclopedia Britannica? The "Europeans."

There have been both white and black slaves. The Hebrews were freed from Slavery by Moses in the "exodus" from Egypt.

In the Biblical times, there were two different forms of slavery. Involuntary Servitude Slavery, and Voluntary Servitude Slavery.

UPDATE 1-4-06


It should be pointed out that Voluntary Servitude is not evil, where Involuntary Servitude is, even though both are a form of slavery. Because of what people have done to races like the Jews and the Africans, it is a delicate thing to even mention the two in the same breath as one is Racist as well as Evil, and the other is neither.

In Biblical times, when people would sell themselves to a rich person to be their "slave", it was not a bad thing because both parties were entering into a contract that was "directly" negotiated, with both parties freely choosing. To me this is a much preferred way to help the poor than to have society vote to have the poor helped by way of "indirect" taxation, as some people will be helping the poor without "freely choosing."

It would seem that everyone would want to help, but there is still an element of lost freedom in the process. It also has a way of allowing people to "cheat" the system much easier, such as the cases we have all heard of where some have "milked" the system for about $50,000.00 per year and have no physical disabilities.

There are those who cannot support themselves and deserve to be helped, (somehow/someway), but there are those on the public "dole" that can work, but refuse to, and those are the ones who have sold themselves to the public as a slave. And the truly sad thing is they are not even "working" for the public. Those that have chosen to help the poor with taxes are doing it with good intentions but the end result is a loss of freedom by those who are forced to help without a choice.

End Update:


Only the Voluntary Servitude was looked upon as being not only legal, but also a way of helping others. I will not go into much detail on the quotes from the Bible, as I will leave that to the reader, but suffice it to say, there were several purposes to having or becoming a Slave.

First the Jews recognized early in history a sad lesson on the human condition. Some people value security more than freedom. People could not ask for the government to feed and clothe them back then, but they could sell themselves to a wealthy family and have all of their cares and needs taken care of for life. No need to worry about going hungry because you would be guaranteed a place to sleep, food to eat and clothes to wear for as long as you were a slave and in some cases for as long as you lived. Today it is those who want "cradle to the grave" security from their neighbors, the taxpayers, to take care of them. Some call it Socialism, or perhaps "Western Socialism" might be a better discription.

Thus the laws of Moses, Roman laws and others made provisions for both free and bond people.

There were four types of legal slavery under the Laws of Moses:

1. Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (Temporary Slaves) – Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection from others were allowed to become indentured servants. (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18) This way they could work within a secure environment until they could overcome their problems. Many early settlers to America came as indentured servants.

2. The Voluntary Permanent Slaves – If people wanted the life of security, they could freely choose to be a permanent slave. (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut 15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate their acceptance of permanent subjection to a master. These were the people like those today that would rather be dependent upon others to provide their needs than to risk hunger and be free. These people today have chosen slavery to the government instead of a personal master.

3. A Thief or Criminal making restitution - Those who could not or would not pay the person harmed by their theft, were sold as a slave. “If a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution.

4. Pagans could be permanent slaves – Since pagans had barbaric traits such as idol worship, human sacrifice, and other horrific practices, if the pagans were to see the beauty of becoming free by obeying the commandments of God, (if we are told that if we touch the hot stove, we will get burned, then if we obey the commandment to not touch the stove, are we not more free because of our obedience?), they could be released from thier agreement and become free men again.

The other method of slavery, (involuntary Servitude), was not biblical or part of the Law of Moses. In fact if a man had a slave that was forced into slavery, then he was treated as a horse thief was in the days of the Wild West, he was put to death for there were few acts worse than stealing a man’s freedom.

While aspects of slavery are Biblical (for punishment and restitution for theft, or for those who prefer the security of becoming a permanent bondservant), the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude.

The legal, or Voluntary Servitude aspect, is the reason that both the Old Testament and the New Testament talked about slavery in a "matter of fact" fashion. It was because it was a matter of law if the person had used his "freedom of Choice" to become a slave, or one of the other leagal options then it was accepted as a choice to be respected.

Jesus often critsized the poor treatment of slaves, but never condemed the legality of the practice because it was a matter of "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" or in other words, obey the laws of the land. (Much of the above about the 4 types of slavery was gathered from information by Stephen McDowell.)

Now, in the beginnings of the settlements in America, we found people practicing the non-biblical practice of involuntary servitude. This practice was seen as evil by anyone who knew his or her bible and by anyone who could understand the concept of the Golden Rule.

While in relative numbers there were very few Plantation owners who could afford slaves, from the time of the early beginnings of this evil practice in about 1610 until 1776, My understanding is that there were about 700,000 slaves in the Americas. I may have to look this number up again, but that is the number that sticks in my mind.

Now, who were in favor of this evil? Again, it was the Plantation owners and other rich white folks who had lost their understanding of the Golden Rule because of greed, vanity and racism.

So, who carried the torch for this evil practice? Well reluctantly those who favored States rights but were against slavery were in a quandary. Did they go back on their firm belief in States Rights or did they try to “force” federalism on the states? The founders came up with an ingenious strategy, since many territories were still awaiting statehood, but still under federal jurisdiction, the founders made laws that any new state must make slavery illegal.

Who else carried the planks of slavery? Which party was the party of the South? Yep, the Democrat Party was. "The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. " - David Barton

"The original Republican platform in 1856 had only nine planks – six of which were dedicated to ending slavery and securing equal rights for African-Americans. The Democratic platform of that year took an opposite position and defended slavery, even warning that “all efforts of the abolitionists [those opposed to slavery]. . . are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and . . . diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union.” The next Democratic platform (1860) endorsed both the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision; Democrats even distributed copies of the Dred Scott ruling to justify their anti-black positions."

In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.” – Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, pp. 32-33. - David Barton

For more info on the history of the Democratic Party see here.

Today, the Democrats still like having people dependent upon them. If they promise a chicken in every basket, and a free lunch, and free health care, they will find willing slaves that would rather have security than freedom only instead of selling thier freedom to a master, they sell it for help from the benevolent masters in Washington D.C., the "free lunch" great society. Insted of "give a man a fish and feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and feed him for life.", they want gratitude and votes every election for thier "give away" programs that keep voters beholden to them. So they "give" them a fish every day so long as they "obey." (No husbands, or "if we find a man living here, we will stop your welfare check because we are the master.")

Most of us will never know what the people who had to put up with the most evil practice on the face of the earth, (involuntary Servitude), or forced slavery, had to endure because only if you are non-white could you ever know what it would be like to face discrimination because of the color of your skin.

My wife’s mother is Half Mexican, (my wife's grandmother was full Mexican and her granfather was full Italian), and she tells me all the time about her discrimination and what it is like, but I still cannot imagine. May God bless all those who have had to put up with Bigots on this planet.

Again, I know there will be opposing views on this as it is part of God's plan that there needs to be opposition in all things, so for those who disagree, fire away as I respect most all opinions because we all believe in our worldview, and who am I to say "who" is right, I am only concerned with "what" is right, and of that, I am only sure that all of us "believe" we know, but since both sides cannot be so, it will be up to the readers to ponder in their hearts.

All I ask is for respect by way of "just present information" and not vanity by saying "who" is wrong and "who" is right. Make it about the information or message and not about the messenger, please.


At 10:33 AM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

Oh, good grief. Pardon me as I go crack the whip at the local student loan office, and please forgive me if I don't see parallels between public assistance and working in the cotton fields. Your comparison has got to be the single most wretched and dismissive of the evil of slavery I've read in a very long while. Ponder it.

The Democracy of Jefferson and Jackson formed in order to secure the vote to freeborn whites, that much is true. The big battles of the early years of the Republic were less over slavery than over issues like the powers of the (private) Bank of the United States and over property requirements for voting.

As far as slavery in the south is concerned, the term that's generally used is 'master race democracy'; the slaveholding states, with their aristocratic governance, held that slavery freed white people to attend to affairs of state instead of drudgery. In a sense, black slavery was considered as the price of freedom for whites.

Underlying slavery was racism, pure and simple. Further evidence for this is provided by the fact that free blacks, who could vote in most states at independence, were successively stripped of voting rights across the country, with the notable exceptions of New York and Massachusetts.

The founders did not make laws that made slavery illegal in the territories; that was what the Missouri compromise was all about. After independece, several slave states joined the union, including Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Texas. There is, in fact, a congruence between red states and slaveholding states and territories; no former free state voted for Dear Leader.

The states-righters did not 'reluctantly' make their arguments; rather, they made them with great enthusiasm. Before actual seccession in 1861, there were several conventions of slave-owning states dedicated to disunion.

It's noteworthy that the final emancipation of black Americans had a very unlikely architect in LBJ, a former Texas senator. He said, at the time, that enacting the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act would cost the Democratic Party the south for generations; and it did. Nonetheless, he did it, providing a rare example of doing what is right over doing what is politically expedient. Can anyone imagine the Rove administration doing anything like that?

:-), StS

At 5:26 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


"Dissmisive?" I said it was evil 5 times and said it was Bigoted once.

That is dissmisive?

Were any of my quotes wrong?

I'll say it again, Slavery of someone because of the color of their skin is EVIL as evil can get and again it was because of greed and yes, racism, of that I think we agree.

You "add" additional information to the discussion and it is appreciated.

"The states-righters did not 'reluctantly' make their arguments; "

I was talking about those who were against slavery being "reluctant" to impose federalism. Of course I wasn't talking about those that were "for" slavery.

Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion, I will ponder your input.



At 5:29 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


said: "The founders did not make laws that made slavery illegal in the territories;"

My point wasn't that they made it illigal in the terrotories, but rather they made it a condition of statehood, whenever that eventually happened.



At 9:37 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...


what I find dismissive - or frankly, as a Democrat, insulting - is the idea that the Democrats' advocacy for various forms of a social safety net is a continuation of the policies of slavery. Welfare is not the equivalent of Uncle Tom's Cabin. To make that comparison is dismissive (less kind words could be used) of slavery and the sheer wretched horror of holding human beings as property. The intent of the social safety net is demonstrably benign, whatever the people over at might think.

I've never heard of an underground railroad of seniors trying to escape medicare, have you?

:-), StS

At 1:31 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


O.K. Fair enough. They certainly are not morally eqivalent.

People are sometimes said to be "a slave to their habit of smoking" and I can see that it is certianlly unfair to say that in some respects, but that was the same kind of connotation I was referring to as they are similar in their social result of being dependant upon others.

In other words, the voluntary servitutide of the people on welfare is similar to the social result of the voluntary servitude of those who made that choice in Biblical times to voluntarily serve a rich person as to be indentured to them.

Force is the key as always. If it is a free choice it is not evil, if it done with force, it is evil.

Perhaps I should think about how to clarify that in the post.

Good job of pointing that out.



At 11:10 AM, Blogger Tex said...

I think you need to mention about Jubilee and the freeing of bondservants. In these years, debts are canceled and the people who choose can start with a clean slate. It makes sense to free the people in years of Jubilee because their fields would lie fallow and no work would be done anyways. Keeping a bonservant while no work or restitution is done is meaningless. Not sure where I'm really going with this but TTYL.


At 12:56 PM, Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

01 04 06

FAR: I was looking at the comments here and actually Do NOT think that a comparison between welfare and slavery is wrong. If someone routinely gets sustinence because of the handouts of someone else, they are a mental and emotional slave and cannot fend for themselves in our society. That cripples the person and again, creates DEPENDENCY! To me, that is SLAVERY, plain and simple. It is almost more pernicious than chattel slavery in the sense that the person's very will to create, acquire knowledge, have ambition and everything else is trumped by their dependency on THE STATE! I have a real problem with that. At least a chattel slave has other skills and knows they have been unfairly imprisoned. But a person who routinely accepts welfare and other forms of assistance is a silent slave, unknowlingly complicit in their own enslavement. No, the analogy wasn't bad at all. Good post.

At 1:01 PM, Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

01 04 06

OK, FAR as I said on the other thread a few mins ago, I respect Walter Williams but consider him exceedingly biased. And I also point out that he has a phD in Economics and I am unsure if colonial law is his expertise. For this reason I am recommending a book by A. Leon Higginbotham called:"In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process." A. Leon Higginbotham was a legal scholar and judge who was at Harvard until he died. This book goes over the slavery practices in the early colonies and yes, the founding fathers created laws separate from the British on slavery trading policies and made the slave codes far less humane than they were before. The South Carolinians even changed slaves from being "freehold" property (still with human rights) to being CHATTEL (no better than a couch). The Founding Fathers of this country endorsed chattel slavery because many of them owned slaves, despite their rhetoric.

At 4:59 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


My information that I have gathered by historians seem to suggest that "some" of the Founding Fathers did own slaves, but that the Majority of them didn't.

I will do some more reasearch on that.

I think that numbers matter and I am probably a little defensive of the fathers because of my great admiration for them.

But anyway when we say things like "The founding fathers this" and "The Founding fathers that", we are not only painting with a broad brush, but we are saying "the majority this" and "The majority that."

But, anyway thanks for your support on the "slave to the state" message.

It means a lot to me to have someone who has more right than I do to say it.



At 5:00 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Did you find the info interesting?



At 8:08 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

Let's just go through the ramifications of what it meant to be a slave, because frankly, it seems people here just don't understand that.

You are a legally and practically a thing. You live in a status where your children, your husband, or your wife, can be taken away from you and sold, where you can be legally raped, maimed, or killed, by your owner, where everything you own, or produce, actually belongs to someone else, and where you have the legal status of an ear of corn.

If your owner kills you, as noted, there is no penalty. If someone else does, they might be considered guilty of destruction of property; unless,that is, they claim you endangered them, in which case, if they're white, your owner will pay a fine on the same principle as he would if he let a rabid dog loose.

You have no right to compensation, no right to a day off, and, should you be compensated, it doesn't matter, because things can't legally own anything. Needless to say, you also can't choose your occupation, let alone education.

You can't vote, move about freely, bring a claim in court, testify in court, legally hold title to anything, and in theory, if you manage to scrimp together the money to buy your freedom, your owner can take your money and still enslave you - because, again, what is yours is his anyway.

That's slavery.

I'll just leave it at that.

At 7:39 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


There are sixteen different meanings in the dictionary for the word "force."

There are at least six in the dictionary for the word "slave."

One of the six just says, "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

This is the one where it's not talking about a person as property.

People who voluntarily become a slave to a "system" or a "social contract" such as the cases we are discussing are not the "property" kind of definition, but the "abjectly subservient" one.

You will admit that words can have more than one meaning won't you?

There is an old saying about communication, "When understanding something, context is king."



At 8:50 AM, Blogger pappy said...

Might I suggest Thomas Sowell's book The Economics and Politics of Race an International Perspective.

At 9:23 AM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

Well, that's a fair point, even if I am perhaps too anal-retentive when it comes to the precise meanings of words. Shoulda been a lawyer, I guess.

My objection yo your use of the term slavery still stands, however. That is because for Americans, the term does carry distinct historical baggage, and parsing the meanings of it doesn't in reality do it justice.

I also have to object to equating welfare, the intent of which is fundamentally benign, no matter how bad some, not all, of the outcomes are, with something that is fundamentally evil.

I find that this use of the term slavery corresponds with some other examples of what I would call term inflation on the right; witness II's post about 'persecution', or the promiscuous use of the term 'treason' on some of the WA blogs. The problem I see with this kind of partisan language abuse - there's examples on my side as well, obviously - is that we are defining the terms downward, thereby diluting them.

:-), StS

At 9:30 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Also FAR,

You say that one must determine the meaning of a word from context, which is correct, so Stalin was 100% correct in assuming you were discussing the American historical brand of slavery from this passage,

“Slavery has existed on nearly every continent, including Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas, and throughout most of recorded history. The ancient Greeks and Romans accepted the institution of slavery, as did the Mayas, Incas, Aztecs, and Chinese. Europeans began importing slaves from Africa to the New World beginning in the 16th century.” - Encyclopedia Britannica

That is, unless, you meant that these civilizations practiced welfare.

At 1:09 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts and ii,

Point taken. Both good points.



At 1:13 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


" is that we are defining the terms downward, thereby diluting them."

I should have also said that I agree with most if not all of your last statement.

When Durbin equates GITMO with Pol Pot and the Holocost, it is just as bad a use of diluting if not more so, so I really do see the point.



At 1:29 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

Well, Durbin isn't the one I was thinking of, because he didn't make that actual equation, but the point remains valid.

I was actually thinking of an article I read some time ago describing a 'salmon holocaust', believe it or not.

:-), StS

At 1:55 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


I was wrong that Durbin said anything about the holocaust, (just Nazis), but Durbin did do the Pol Pot comparison, he said,

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings,...."

But that doesn't change the fact that we agree about the diluting of words.

'salmon holocaust', wow!, Unbelieveable.



At 2:55 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite people in the world.

He "tells it like it is" and is not afraid to not be "PC."

One of the reasons for this post was his other book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals."

I had been impressed with his intellect since reading about the fact that he had a dramatic effect on Clarence Thomas.

Read what this person had to say about this book: "As a black child growing up, I was consistently criticized by other blacks for not behaving in what they felt was true black culture. Now I have further confirmation that those kids were truly misguided and such situations demonstrate the danger of people not being cognizant of history. It would be one thing if Thomas Sowell were just writing information without any empirical evidence, however, he lists all of his sources and there are many.

I believe leaders such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Maxine Waters, and Charles Rangel need to read and acknowledge the truth that has been outlined in "History of Vision". Sowell explains perfectly how people are so addicted to their vision that they are willing to ignore hard facts or twist them to make their vision valid. This is a man more blacks should be listening too and not the demagogues aforementioned."

He has opened my eyes on the importance of Culture over other factors such as discrimination when it comes to understanding any race.

Read all of the reviews for this book here



At 3:50 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

"I had been impressed with his intellect since reading about the fact that he had a dramatic effect on Clarence Thomas."

Are you being sarcastic? Clarence Thomas ain't the sharpest tool in that shed, his bizarre ideological proclivities aside. Most lawyers I know consider him objectively the least qualified of the sitting Justices. There's a reason he's usually silent during arguments.

:-), StS

At 4:28 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


First, I was talking about Sowell's intellect, not Thomas's.

I think when we are talking about people being sharp, it becomes a matter of opinion and we all have our bias.

Would it be safe to assume that your lawyer friends are of the same ideology as you, which just happens to be the opposite of Thomas?

Thomas usually sides with Scillia and most think he is one of the brightest, yes?

Any way I admire Thomas not so much for his intellect, but rather for his acheivements. Especially for one who has the disadvantages that he started with.

I feel the same way about Condi Rice. And you probably feel she is not very bright either?

But again, it is not about intellect as much as acheivement.

Fair enough?



At 4:43 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

Not really; my circle is pretty diverse in terms of politics.

My point is not that Thomas is a drooling idiot; he's not. But by the standards of SCOTUS, he's not very impressive. Certainly, he's got more brain capacity than us mere mortals; but compared to his predecessor, he's at best second-rate. Condi Rice can run laps around him. She may be intellectually dishonest, but dumb she is most certainly not. How she puts up with her boss, I'll never understand; that must be painful.

:-), StS

At 5:32 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

O.K. I have a better understanding of your paradigm now.




At 5:35 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


My wife saw your profile photo, the small one, and asked "How come he is wearing a red mask?"



At 10:44 AM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

...and I wasn't even wearing glasses.

:-), StS

At 10:55 AM, Blogger Reign of Reason said...

Ok… I haven’t read any of your previous posts on this subject… Some quick thoughts.

Voluntary servitude: You make is sound like a fair exchange – a lifetime of service for security food and shelter. We have no way of knowing, but how many of these ‘slaves of choice’ were horribly abused sometime after entering into this contract?

And if you believe ‘freedom’ is a commodity that can be bargained away (as opposed to an inalienable right of every human being) why do you oppose suicide? (Which I assume you do…)

Back to the slavery-socialism analogy you attempt to make.

You really think the majority of people are choosing to depend on government programs for their subsistence? Human beings are pliable creatures: we learn to deal with our surrounding not only from the physical environment we find ourselves in, but also the emotional one. The plight of inner-city depression is more a fact of the existing conditions than personal ‘decision’ making. To believe otherwise ignores the data: Those born to poor parents in depressed regions have an overwhelming likelihood of remaining in those conditions… The corollary: how does one decide to make a life for yourself when you are surrounded by poverty and the only message you hear (from family and friends) is that your circumstance is not your fault, that the system is against you, etc.

“4. Pagans could be permanent slaves – Since pagans had barbaric traits such as idol worship, human sacrifice, and other horrific practices, if the pagans were to see the beauty of becoming free by obeying the commandments of God, …”
Let’s talk about the barbarism: Just look at the punishments assigned to god’s commandments:

Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
THAT is barbaric…

As for the democratic party – yes, the dems were the party of the south back then… But – well, you know, I’m not even gonna go there. I gotta get back to work.

Christians should practice a lot of of Jesus’ teaching and dump the rest of the crap that we know as the bible… It clearly gives rise to absurdity.

At 2:59 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


said:"surely be put to death"

Take the word .."Cool"

They mean it to be "That's pretty awsome!" So, in 500 years if someone was to translate that word into say "Greek" they might translate it into several different meanings unless they had the understanding of the context and also the proper contemporary understanding. They might say for instance that the person meant that it "felt below room temperture to the touch."

In the Greek and Hebrew translations of the Bible, many noted scholars have said that the word in Hebrew that translates into english as "shall surely be put to death" can be translated to be "be the Lord's property, or be employed in his service, till death."

Dr. Adam Clarke is one of them and he is probably one of THE most respected by all Christians.

Here in Dr. Clarke's commentary on Leviticus Chap 27 verse 29 we find just such a case,....

"Verse 29. Which shall be devoted of men] Every man who is devoted shall surely be put to death; or, as some understand it, be the Lord's property, or be employed in his service, till death. "

Emphisis mine.

Said:"You really think the majority of people are choosing to depend on government programs for their subsistence?"

Yes, my mother-in-law was on Welfare most of her life and she told me not only was it her choice, but everyone she knew that was on Welfare made that choice.

I asked her why and she said, "Why should I work for %5.00 per hour and pay taxes and child care, when I can make $4.00 per hour staying at home and watching T.V. and not pay a babysitter and not pay taxes?

I said, point taken!

I have heard that 80% of all homeless people were staying with relatives until "They decided" to become homeless.

Huston McTear was making a million dollars a year as a track star until in his own words he "tired of the rat race and decided his stress wan much lower as a homeless person."

What you say has merit, but there are always two sides to any position, as that is why we are not all the same.

None-the-less your statements don't change what I have postulated, but it was nice of you to contribute and thanks for the thoughts.



At 9:26 AM, Blogger Reign of Reason said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 9:27 AM, Blogger Reign of Reason said...

… "shall surely be put to death" can be translated to be "be the Lord's property, or be employed in his service, till death."

Your spin on the old testament wouldn’t seem to support the death penalty today. Where do you stand on that?

You’re trying to tell me that this penalty – spoken of often in the old testament – isn’t to be taken as translated in the KJV, NAS, LB, etc.? What about those stoned to death for adultery and working on the Sabbath?? Would seem Moses didn’t agree with your Dr. Clarke:

Numbers, Chapter 15, Verse 32,36:
32. And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
36. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Is there some alternate translation Mr. Clarke proposes for this verse?

Come’on – the old testament is barbaric… No apologetic translation is gonna get around that fact. It paints a picture of a vindictive, self-absorbed, self-conscious creator that uses people as pawns (Job) to prove his superiority to the devil…

What about those other bible mis-translations… like the way “doulos”, greek for ‘slave’ is conveniently translated “man” or “bond” servant to make the 10th commandment ‘kinder and gentler’.

So do you then not believe in the inerrancy of the King James, New American Standard, etc. bible? Or only the orig greek? I thought Christians believed that the first 5 books of the bible were given to Moses “letter-by-letter” … Interesting that god would let the most WIDELY translated version of his word (the KJV) contain such a glaring error… If he has the power to get it letter-4-letter correct to Moses, you think he’d be able to get it translated accurately…

Moreover -- if I read you correctly you don’t find a problem with voluntary “slavery”. This would seem to imply that you value individual choice above almost all else. So what about the choice to do cocaine… or meth? Shouldn’t that follow the same law of individual choice? What about the choice to die? Can I ‘off’ myself if I’m sick of this life???

Surely if god didn’t see anything wrong with someone voluntarily sacrificing their freedom, it would follow that god wouldn’t mind if I wanted to do coke – or kill myself. After all, he specified how fathers can sell their daughters into sexual slavery… (Exodus 21:7-11)

At 10:20 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Said: "So do you then not believe in the inerrancy of the King James, New American Standard, etc. bible?"

No, I don't.

I think the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and other things in the Bible itself show that it was translated by men and that they were inspired, but still men. Also those who were safeguarding the original "Scrolls" that eventually became the Bible, (Library of Books is meaning of the word Bible), may have deliberately changed/left out or done other things to them.

"What about those stoned to death for adultery and working on the Sabbath??"

If you read my post below "Old Testament Justice" you will see that there is much misunderstanding of Jewish law that only those who have studied the Bible and the "Law of Moses" extensively understand.

I was trying to enlighten those who see inconsistencies in the words of Jesus in the Old Testament, and the words of Jesus in the New Testament. After all, Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, and any reasonable thinking Christian should wish to reconcile the seeming inconsistencies between the two.

Now, having said that, there are things like different “rituals and different laws for different times”, but the underlying principals should still apply unless a person believes that God changes over time…He mellows out? I think he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

In almost every instance I can find except for murder, there are Bible Scholars who have shown that "capital punishment" as the "Maximum Penalty" had lesser options like "banishment." Kind of like today when we hear that a crime had a range of consequences but the press often only mentions the maximum penalty by saying things like…”could get life imprisonment”, or like the case just recently about the guy who got “60 days” for repeatedly raping a young girl over a four year span.

There are many Christians who do not wish to do the research to find this out and because of various reasons may disagree with my findings and although I do not wish to search for my notes from about 20 years ago when I found out these things I may not have done as good of job of showing my sources, you will see that I gave some of my recent findings in my comments section.

Said “So what about the choice to do cocaine… or meth? Shouldn’t that follow the same law of individual choice?”

Yes, it should. I am O.K. with people doing heroin, cocaine, etc, in the privacy of their own home. My definition of freedom is this…”As long as my actions do not infringe upon others, and their freedoms, I should be able to do anything.”

Or, and old saying about what freedom really is, “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.”

I am not a libertarian, but close to it.



At 10:19 AM, Blogger Reign of Reason said...

You do sound like a libertarian!! :)

So god gave us these orignal writings -- they are perfect... But he's allowed the most widely distributed version of his message to be pretty-well screwed up??

I really don't want to keep going, but how do you reconcile that with an all powerful, benevolent god?

Anyway... interesting.

At 5:38 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Said: "Keep Going?"

Yes, I like having my understanding challenged. It keeps me on my toes and makes me reevaluate my positions to insure I am not heading off on a tangent.

Said: "but how do you reconcile that with an all powerful, benevolent god?"

Very fair and good question.

I am very logical and do not think that God ignores fairness when it comes to us, his children.

I believe he cannot sin or he would cease to be God, and therefore he must never be a hypocrite or inconsistent.

Free will has always existed, just as God has always existed. But Justice and Mercy are at odds. In fact, there must be opposition is all things in order for the Universe to function....Matter/Anti-Matter, Up/Down, Right/Wrong, Right/Left, Hot/Cold, Ad infinitum.

We cannot ever know hot without cold, up without down, etc.

So, in order for us to have faith, we are always presented with two opposing views and one view will be difficult to easily dismiss, yet it will always have passionate proponents.

Now if one believes that we are here to "learn the difference between good and evil", then we must do it on faith and "the dark side" so to speak must be given some creditability in order to make it a fair test.

I believe that the Bible has perfect messages, but it was written by men with inspiration from God.

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. He was told the story of Creation and the history of the human race during those periods that the five books covered.

There are mistranslations that have occurred and there are also missing books that the prophets talked about, not to mention the Catholics have many books in their bible that are not in the King James version.

Only by careful study and understanding of the full message of both the old and new testaments of the Bible can we see the consistency in them.

We will be judged based upon our integrity. Meaning that the more we know the more we will be held accountable for.

God doesn't want his children to understand the hidden messages in the Bible until they are ready for them, thus the parables, metaphors and seeming inconsistencies.



At 5:43 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


One last point. The writings are not perfect.

If he wanted us to "know" he exists, he would just "show himself" and that would be that.

Faith requires having credible doubt. That is it in a nutshell. Without credible doubt, or credible opposition, we would all be of one mind.




Post a Comment

<< Home