PDA

View Full Version : slavery in Abrahamic religions



arp1
15 November 2011, 10:57 AM
Since it is believed to be gods words. I am posting it here.

Christianity............
Exodus 21:20-21
King James Version (KJV)
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Islam.........
002.178

SHAKIR: O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.

In these verses human being is treated like a commodity ?
Is this correct?

Spiritualseeker
16 November 2011, 09:28 AM
Namaste,

I think they are treated as a commodity in Abrahamic religions. In Islam you can have a slave, but you must cloth them and feed them the way you wear and eat. This is nice, but the problem is they are still slaves. Muhammad even had a slave (not sure if many know this). Female slaves can be used for sex. You can trade them for money. They work under you. Ali ibn Abu Talib who is the 1st Imam of the Muslims had sex with a slave girl before the last hajj of Muhammad after a battle in which he obtain the booty of war. We all know the followers of Judaism also supported slavery and is justified in the bible. Jesus even uses metaphors by using terms from slavery. Such as the slave and the slave master are not the same. Its not surprising to see many of the Abrahamic followers are obsessed with capitalism.


Om Namah Shivaya

Jainarayan
16 November 2011, 10:02 AM
Slavery was common as far back as at least the Bronze Age, when the Old Testament was compiled. It continued to the time of Jesus, which is why he commented on it, being familiar with it, continuing even up to the present day. Christians (not all, just the more fundamental and literalist ones) pick and choose what portions of the bible, especially the Old Testament, they want to adhere to. They eat shellfish and bacon double cheeseburgers, get haircuts and shave their beards, and wear fabric blends, which are all forbidden in Leviticus, yet they constantly cite Lev. 18:22 to condemn homosexuality. It's hypocrisy of the first magnitide.

sanjaya
16 November 2011, 10:52 AM
Yeah, I will certainly grant that evangelicals have been good about utterly repudiating slavery. But the fact that it's sanctioned in the Bible largely discredits their claim that their scripture is an absolute moral guide.

Mana
16 November 2011, 11:17 AM
Since it is believed to be gods words. I am posting it here.

Christianity............
Exodus 21:20-21
King James Version (KJV)
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Islam.........
002.178

SHAKIR: O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.

In these verses human being is treated like a commodity ?
Is this correct?


Namaste arp1,

I would recommend you find the script in the original language and translate it your self before drawing any conclusions, I haven't thus I can't ...

At the time of transcription, servitude may have been common, the original language may be referring to something else, for example imagine the local lord of the land being worshipped by those who chose to live in the same community. Language and other forms of mAyA do not chage at the same rate, nor do they change in parallel ways.

praNAam

mana

Jainarayan
16 November 2011, 11:33 AM
Namaste all.


I would recommend you find the script in the original language and translate it your self before drawing any conclusions

That's an excellent point. The original text is often not what it is translated to. The original Hebrew has been filtered through Greek, Latin, Old English, Middle English and Modern English. Even Paul's Greek is mostly mistranslated and misunderstood. It's like the game of telephone... the original message can be so distorted as to be unrecognizable from the original. I do not believe, as most Christian churches maintain, that the bible was preserved from error by God.

arp1
16 November 2011, 11:49 AM
Thank you my brothers. , I am interested to see OCC's reply. I want to know how she is going to defend Allah? I have quiet a few Allah's words which need explanation from Islam apologists .

UniversalLove
16 November 2011, 04:19 PM
Just so you know, the Bible isn't promoting slavery; it is just mentioning it, as it was part of the culture mentioned.

Tikkun Olam
16 November 2011, 09:55 PM
I would recommend you find the script in the original language and translate it your self before drawing any conclusions, I haven't thus I can't ...

praNAam

mana

Bingo.

The word used in Hebrew that is often translated into "slave" is עבד
which more closely means "to work", or "to labor".

There are other words that mean "slave" in the modern sense people think of, such as שפחה

What was the original intention? Back then, they had no jails. If you were convicted of a crime, and you had debt owed to someone, you have to pay a monetary fee. If you couldn't, you would sell yourself into עבד or "labor" for a maximum of six years (all debts were considered repaid at the beginning of the seventh year and you were free, no matter how large the debt). It should be interesting to note, that they specifically mention Hebrew slaves here. Why would the Hebrews take their own for slaves? No other nation I can think of has done this. It's because they weren't really slaves, but criminals.



(TouchedbytheLord: we can cut our hair, and we're only not supposed to shave with a blade. The reason being we're not supposed to put a blade to our bodies, ever. I shave with an electric razor, which is acceptable because it does not cut the skin. I follow the whole law, I'm not a hypocrite.)

Spiritualseeker
17 November 2011, 06:50 PM
Namaste,



Bingo.

The word used in Hebrew that is often translated into "slave" is עבד
which more closely means "to work", or "to labor".

There are other words that mean "slave" in the modern sense people think of, such as שפחה

What was the original intention? Back then, they had no jails. If you were convicted of a crime, and you had debt owed to someone, you have to pay a monetary fee. If you couldn't, you would sell yourself into עבד or "labor" for a maximum of six years (all debts were considered repaid at the beginning of the seventh year and you were free, no matter how large the debt). It should be interesting to note, that they specifically mention Hebrew slaves here. Why would the Hebrews take their own for slaves? No other nation I can think of has done this. It's because they weren't really slaves, but criminals.


Thank you for the explanation. I do not see how this makes anything better. Women and children were taken slaves and many for sure had to experience trauma from this. There is no sugar coating it. It reminds me of Muslims trying to state that since Muslims cloth and feed the slaves, then it is not such a bad thing.

The god of the Judaism allowed for slaughter in his name and the taking of captives. Quite frankly, god ordered terrorism.


I follow the whole law, I'm not a hypocrite.)


I do not know what is truly in your mind, but I find it a bit arrogant when one tries to claim that they are not hypocrites. Surely, there must be some type of flaw within you? Unless perhaps you realized you are not your changing personality. Perhaps the one who fails to follow the law, yet always tries his best and does not boast, perhaps that one is not a hypocrite. This is not an attack on you, for perhaps you are not a hypocrite, its just an observation I am making. That observation may be wrong.

Om Namah Shivaya

UniversalLove
17 November 2011, 07:08 PM
deleted

never mind :)

devotee
17 November 2011, 09:53 PM
Namaste,

On reading Tikkun's post, I feel that Abrahimic religions tend to control their adherents a little too much and they happily follow it all. How to have a hair-cut, how to shave or not to shave ... etc. etc.

It is not that such customs have not been part of other religious groups at some point but most of the groups have decided to adopt logically correct ways discarding the old ones and some religious groups apparently stick to such old ways even if there is no valid and good explanation.

Is this spirituality ?

OM

Jainarayan
18 November 2011, 09:04 AM
(TouchedbytheLord: we can cut our hair, and we're only not supposed to shave with a blade. The reason being we're not supposed to put a blade to our bodies, ever. I shave with an electric razor, which is acceptable because it does not cut the skin. I follow the whole law, I'm not a hypocrite.)

I was referring to Christians who cherry-pick and twist the Law to suit their own agendas. They actually know nothing about it, yet think they know more about it than an observant and pious Jew does.

Btw, no snarkiness intended, how does an observant Jew go about fulfilling the requirements for sacrifice (burnt offerings) as specified? Has that been replaced with something symbolic that fulfills the requirements? Or is it also open to interpretation?

Mana
18 November 2011, 10:23 AM
Namaste Tikkun Olam,

It is of interest here to highlight that; key to understanding certain ideas of the Vedas and other Hindu scripture, is the realisation that knowledge is transcendental, it exists out side of these confines of time and language.

praNAma

mana

R Gitananda
18 November 2011, 12:12 PM
Hi Tikkun Olam. I know this is trivial but - every electric razor that I have owned had blades within it and the blades touch my skin enough to give me a close shave and occasionally draw blood. I am confident that if I examined the hair trimmings that I would find bits of skin among them. For awhile I used a depilatory but that annoyed me for a different reason ... now I wear a beard most of the time.:)


... (TouchedbytheLord: we can cut our hair, and we're only not supposed to shave with a blade. The reason being we're not supposed to put a blade to our bodies, ever. I shave with an electric razor, which is acceptable because it does not cut the skin. I follow the whole law, I'm not a hypocrite.) ...

Tikkun Olam
18 November 2011, 02:25 PM
Namaste,

Thank you for the explanation. I do not see how this makes anything better. Women and children were taken slaves and many for sure had to experience trauma from this. There is no sugar coating it. It reminds me of Muslims trying to state that since Muslims cloth and feed the slaves, then it is not such a bad thing.

The god of the Judaism allowed for slaughter in his name and the taking of captives. Quite frankly, god ordered terrorism.

There are two concepts here. The concept of criminals, and the concept of war. War is where we attacked other people, and criminals were our own people. Try and keep in mind that they are two separate things.

And you should to understand that we are a very self-critical people. One of the things about our history that is different from the other ancient histories is that ours makes us look bad. Not just in one place, but throughout the whole thing. Most other people proudly bolstered their virtues and triumphs, but we left all the warts and boils in there. As for warfare, we look back and agree that things were more brutal back then. But the reason we keep it there is to learn from it. We don't claim that God commanded us to kill, but that we decided to. That makes us no different from other nations. All nations go to war, all nations kill. We were a nomadic group with no land, and we were tired of camping in the desert with no food, so we attacked Canaan and conquered the land. It's not pretty, but that's how war works.

I will say that since then, we have been known to be an exceptionally peaceful people. No where in the last 3000 years is there a record of us attacking anyone.

And we all know that everyone has blood on their hands somewhere at sometime if you look hard enough. You're not an exception to that rule, either. I hope people don't try to play that game, because if you do, you can't be anything in this world. Everyone and everything is then evil. For us, you're talking about only a single act that happened more than 3000 years ago, and that we never repeated.

Going back to the concept of servants I mentioned above, I do think it was a good system, not a bad one. Compare it to what we have now. Today if someone commits a crime, we spend all this money to throw them in jail, take away their freedoms, and force them to work for next to nothing. That sounds horrible too, doesn't it? What we had back then was a system where you worked directly to pay off your debts to the person you wronged, not the state. And you had more freedoms than people do today, because you weren't confined to live in a box called a jail cell (not to mention today people spend 20, 30, 40 years in prison, whereas back then the maximum amount of "time" you could have was 6 years!). If we could get rid of today's prison system and replace it with that one, I think it would be a huge improvement for a number a reasons.


I do not know what is truly in your mind, but I find it a bit arrogant when one tries to claim that they are not hypocrites. Surely, there must be some type of flaw within you? Unless perhaps you realized you are not your changing personality. Perhaps the one who fails to follow the law, yet always tries his best and does not boast, perhaps that one is not a hypocrite. This is not an attack on you, for perhaps you are not a hypocrite, its just an observation I am making. That observation may be wrong.

Om Namah Shivaya

That was to TouchedbytheLord. It was in reference to doing things like eating kosher food and not using a blade or getting tattoos and all these other things that Christians usually don't follow.

And as for the burnt offerings, they are no longer done since the destruction of the temple. They have been symbolically replaced by prayers. Similarly, the Samaritans (who never left the land) on Passover still sacrifice a lamb, whereas we represent it with having a Seder Plate. These decisions are known as our Oral Law. It's considered that the authoritative law is the one held by the majority. This is why you're considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish. No where is that written, but it became the accepted rabbinical view after much debate.

And the electric razor- that's actually another example. People decided that since they actually work like scissors (which basically trim your beard very very closely) and trimming with scissors is okay, than electric razors are okay. Believe me, people never stop debating these things. It's a combination of written tradition that doesn't change and the oral tradition that always changes that has kept us alive. If we lived in a bubble from the word and never changed, we would have suffocated and died out. If we were immediately accepting of every culture around us, we would have been assimilated and vanished. If you wanted to know how we survive, that's the secret!

And finally@devotee: you're right. That's the same thing the Geeks said about us. They couldn't understand. We didn't eat the food they liked, we didn't build any statues. (The called it an "inhospitable" way of life). One of the most common complaints about us is that we didn't do work on Saturday. Both the Greeks and Romans decided to attack us then (a couple centuries apart, though). Our people didn't even fight back, they just let themselves get slaughtered. The Greeks laughed at us, the Romans laughed. But surprisingly, they're extinct and we're not! We do these crazy things because we think that we're defending something important. We're protecting our history, and we have strongly intense feelings for our history.

devotee
18 November 2011, 06:33 PM
Namaste Tikkun,



And finally@devotee: you're right. That's the same thing the Geeks said about us. They couldn't understand. We didn't eat the food they liked, we didn't build any statues. (The called it an "inhospitable" way of life). One of the most common complaints about us is that we didn't do work on Saturday. Both the Greeks and Romans decided to attack us then (a couple centuries apart, though). Our people didn't even fight back, they just let themselves get slaughtered. The Greeks laughed at us, the Romans laughed. But surprisingly, they're extinct and we're not! We do these crazy things because we think that we're defending something important. We're protecting our history, and we have strongly intense feelings for our history.

Whatever the Greeks and others did against Jews is sad & deplorable & cannot be pardoned. However, this Jews' thinking that it is all for a great cause ... needs some serious thinking by Jew Scholars. Just think ... why should God like us to suffer ? There is no reason. Sometime we make some self-imposed rules and feel that we are following God's orders. You should suffer just because you are a Jew ... doesn't make any sense. Some rules ... mostly social ones are valid at some point of time due to some peculiar situation prevailing at that time ... we should not keep clinging to something which has outlived its purpose. We need a paddle and a boat to cross the river ... why keep it carrying on our head once we have crossed the river ?

Whether it is right or wrong or even relevant in today's times can be decided by attaining One-ness with God ... Hindus have relied on advices of God-realised saints to keep changing their social customs from time to time. I don't know whether there is any such system in Judaism or not.

OM

Spiritualseeker
18 November 2011, 08:50 PM
Namaste,


There are two concepts here. The concept of criminals, and the concept of war. War is where we attacked other people, and criminals were our own people. Try and keep in mind that they are two separate things.

And you should to understand that we are a very self-critical people. One of the things about our history that is different from the other ancient histories is that ours makes us look bad. Not just in one place, but throughout the whole thing. Most other people proudly bolstered their virtues and triumphs, but we left all the warts and boils in there. As for warfare, we look back and agree that things were more brutal back then. But the reason we keep it there is to learn from it. We don't claim that God commanded us to kill, but that we decided to. That makes us no different from other nations. All nations go to war, all nations kill. We were a nomadic group with no land, and we were tired of camping in the desert with no food, so we attacked Canaan and conquered the land. It's not pretty, but that's how war works.

I am glad that you see that the history was bad. Now I don't understand what you mean when you say that, 'We don't claim that God cammanded us to kill, but that we decided to." I think this is a mistake on your part. Did not God order Moses, Solomon, and other prophets to wage war? When I was a muslim I read an article by a Islamic Mujahid which was titled 'Solomon was a Terrorist' In this work he quoted some 'historical' references that are also in the bible of how Solomon was committing terrorism. Moses' wars are just as gruesome. We cannot deny that the Judaic deity is a deity who sanctions wars. We can say that this is just the way things are for people, but that does not make it any better.


I will say that since then, we have been known to be an exceptionally peaceful people. No where in the last 3000 years is there a record of us attacking anyone.

And we all know that everyone has blood on their hands somewhere at sometime if you look hard enough. You're not an exception to that rule, either. I hope people don't try to play that game, because if you do, you can't be anything in this world. Everyone and everything is then evil. For us, you're talking about only a single act that happened more than 3000 years ago, and that we never repeated.

What? I am confused. 3,000 years ago and was never repeated. I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that Israel as a nation has been committing terrorism on a daily basis against the people of Palestine. Now I suspect someone would say that Palestinian terrorist attack Israel. First I want to make it clear that someone walking onto a bus or a cafe with explosives and detonates is a terrorist and its not justified in any way shape or form. Secondly, I will say that shelling cities, forbidding aid, shooting at news media (including non-muslim media), and assassinations are terrorism. Its interesting that Israel is a nation that has NUCLEAR WEAPONS. People will say, it is to defend against Muslims. So in order to defend against Muslims you have to have nuclear weapons that could destroy entire cities, damage the Earth, and cause a chain of cause and effect that will create generations of deformity and illness.

Let us not forget that the main rallying of Israeli soldiers are biblical stories and prophecy. Thousands have been murdered by Israeli soldiers in the name of religion. The atrocities are not something just in the ancient past, but are alive today.



Going back to the concept of servants I mentioned above, I do think it was a good system, not a bad one. Compare it to what we have now. Today if someone commits a crime, we spend all this money to throw them in jail, take away their freedoms, and force them to work for next to nothing. That sounds horrible too, doesn't it? What we had back then was a system where you worked directly to pay off your debts to the person you wronged, not the state. And you had more freedoms than people do today, because you weren't confined to live in a box called a jail cell (not to mention today people spend 20, 30, 40 years in prison, whereas back then the maximum amount of "time" you could have was 6 years!). If we could get rid of today's prison system and replace it with that one, I think it would be a huge improvement for a number a reasons.


No offense, but I would not like to be a non-jew facing penalties under a Jewish system, no matter how much one may sugar coat it.


That was to TouchedbytheLord. It was in reference to doing things like eating kosher food and not using a blade or getting tattoos and all these other things that Christians usually don't follow.

Yes I know of the reference you made the statement in, but I think it smells the hint of arrogance. You are better by following certain laws that will not give anyone salvation. Perhaps you may feel better than Christians, but the root of both Christian belief in Christ and the Jewish belief in 'God' all comes from pagan traditions. It is unfortunate that we are not taught in schools about the origins of Judaism and Christianity. It would save a lot of grief for people if they but knew.


Om Namah Shivaya

R Gitananda
19 November 2011, 09:32 PM
"Let us not forget that the main rallying of Israeli soldiers are biblical stories and prophecy.
Thousands have been murdered by Israeli soldiers in the name of religion. The atrocities
are not something just in the ancient past, but are alive today."

namaste

Much to the consternation of many secular Israeli's, orthodoxy is on the rise
in Israel. That, combined with the stockpiling of nuclear weapons is very unsettling.

Hari Aum



Namaste,



I am glad that you see that the history was bad. Now I don't understand what you mean when you say that, 'We don't claim that God cammanded us to kill, but that we decided to." I think this is a mistake on your part. Did not God order Moses, Solomon, and other prophets to wage war? When I was a muslim I read an article by a Islamic Mujahid which was titled 'Solomon was a Terrorist' In this work he quoted some 'historical' references that are also in the bible of how Solomon was committing terrorism. Moses' wars are just as gruesome. We cannot deny that the Judaic deity is a deity who sanctions wars. We can say that this is just the way things are for people, but that does not make it any better.



What? I am confused. 3,000 years ago and was never repeated. I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that Israel as a nation has been committing terrorism on a daily basis against the people of Palestine. Now I suspect someone would say that Palestinian terrorist attack Israel. First I want to make it clear that someone walking onto a bus or a cafe with explosives and detonates is a terrorist and its not justified in any way shape or form. Secondly, I will say that shelling cities, forbidding aid, shooting at news media (including non-muslim media), and assassinations are terrorism. Its interesting that Israel is a nation that has NUCLEAR WEAPONS. People will say, it is to defend against Muslims. So in order to defend against Muslims you have to have nuclear weapons that could destroy entire cities, damage the Earth, and cause a chain of cause and effect that will create generations of deformity and illness.

Let us not forget that the main rallying of Israeli soldiers are biblical stories and prophecy. Thousands have been murdered by Israeli soldiers in the name of religion. The atrocities are not something just in the ancient past, but are alive today.




No offense, but I would not like to be a non-jew facing penalties under a Jewish system, no matter how much one may sugar coat it.



Yes I know of the reference you made the statement in, but I think it smells the hint of arrogance. You are better by following certain laws that will not give anyone salvation. Perhaps you may feel better than Christians, but the root of both Christian belief in Christ and the Jewish belief in 'God' all comes from pagan traditions. It is unfortunate that we are not taught in schools about the origins of Judaism and Christianity. It would save a lot of grief for people if they but knew.


Om Namah Shivaya

Tikkun Olam
20 November 2011, 11:16 AM
Namaste Tikkun,



Whatever the Greeks and others did against Jews is sad & deplorable & cannot be pardoned. However, this Jews' thinking that it is all for a great cause ... needs some serious thinking by Jew Scholars. Just think ... why should God like us to suffer ? There is no reason. Sometime we make some self-imposed rules and feel that we are following God's orders. You should suffer just because you are a Jew ... doesn't make any sense. Some rules ... mostly social ones are valid at some point of time due to some peculiar situation prevailing at that time ... we should not keep clinging to something which has outlived its purpose. We need a paddle and a boat to cross the river ... why keep it carrying on our head once we have crossed the river ?

Whether it is right or wrong or even relevant in today's times can be decided by attaining One-ness with God ... Hindus have relied on advices of God-realised saints to keep changing their social customs from time to time. I don't know whether there is any such system in Judaism or not.

OM

There is such a system. I just described it above. It's called the Oral tradition. We compare the Written and Oral to the Sun and Moon. The Sun is the same everyday, never changing. The Moon however is different every day. It is also a reflection of the Sun- yet even though the Sun doesn't change, and the Moon is a reflection of it, the Moon changes. That's the Oral tradition.

I talked about suffering in the other thread, but my point was it does happen for a reason. It's a more complicated issue than you might think at first. I don't want to go into it again (we also have no choice- Jews who renounce their Jewishness and their history suffer as much as religious Jews). Instead of that, I will leave you with words that our scholar's believe to have described the ideal man;

"Those who are insulted but do not insult, hear their shame but do not reply, act out of love and rejoice in suffering, of them it is written: 'And those who love Him will be as the Sun in it's splendor'."

Interesting how they included "rejoice in suffering". What a strange concept.



And @Spiritualseeker: I would think that Indians were full aware of the kinds of terrorists the Islamists are. They hate both of us, don't they? Is it okay for India to defend herself against the terrorists? Is it not okay for America to have nuclear weapons to guard off attacks? Then why don't these basic rights of self-defense apply for Israel, too?

Also, the modern state of Israel has nothing to do with religion. In the 1800's Jews wanted to leave Europe because of all the antisemitism. They started to move back to what is now know as Israel, and were a significant minority in the early 1900's. They continued to increase there until the 1920's (which was supported by the UN voting on the British Mandate at the time). By the 30's when the Nazi's came to power, they tried to move there in larger numbers, which is when Arabs, under the influence of Hitler, started restricting immigration (there were no issues before then). Even America at this time (from about 1920-1950) had laws stating that Jews couldn't come in. These were people who were literally pushed out of every place they tried to go. They were forced back to Europe, where most of them perished in concentration camps. The survivors after 1945 tried to go back to their homelands but were usually met with violence. Some desperately tried to go to America, but Truman turned the boats around. With zero options left, they built up the state we call Israel, fulfilling the promise made to them decades before by the UN. I know this well since I had family who died in Europe in the 1930's and 40's. The only reason I'm here is because some of them were lucking enough to make it into America before 1920 when they were still allowed to. The question is, does this group of people have a right to live? Can they stay in one place without being kicked out? Can they defend themselves from terrorists who want nothing more than their complete disappearance? Israel asks for nothing than to protect themselves and stay where they are. If they were going by the Bible, then they would actually be asking for MORE land. Modern day Jordan was once a part of ancient Israel, but you don't see us asking for that land, do you? That's because their existence and borders are not defined by the Bible, but by history and politics.

To give you an idea of how much these politics preceded WWII, this is something written by Mark Twain (not a Jew) in the year 1898 (50 years before the state of Israel!), "Dr. Herzl has a clear insight into the value of that. Have you heard of his plan? He wishes to gather the Jews of the world together in Palestine, with a government of their own - under the suzerainty of the Sultan, I suppose. At the Convention of Berne, last year, there were delegates from everywhere, and the proposal was received with decided favor. I am not the Sultan, and I am not objecting; but if that concentration of the cunningest brains in the world were going to be made in a free country (bar Scotland), I think it would be politic to stop it. It will not be well to let the race find out its strength. If the horses knew theirs, we should not ride any more."

And btw, I think this thread is starting to get hijacked, and I don't want to go off into the million different topics you raised here. Not that they're not interesting or that I don't want to, but this thread will probably be blown up if we talked about all of it.

R Gitananda
21 November 2011, 12:54 PM
... Is it not okay for America to have nuclear weapons to guard off attacks? Then why don't these basic rights of self-defense apply for Israel, too? ...

Nuclear weapons are not one of the "basic rights of self-defense". They are an unfortunate part of modern life.
The United States developed nuclear weapons because they thought Hitler was developing them.

The United States has repeatedly vowed to defend Israel if it were attacked. Therefore Israel, like Japan -
is already covered by the 'nuclear umbrella' of the United States. Israel's decision not to trust the United States
and develop it's own nuclear arsenal is as destabilizing in the Middle East as a decision by Japan to do the same
would be destabilizing in Asia.

Iran, the arch-enemy of Israel, will likely not rest until they have the same "basic rights" as their hated foe.
No good can come from the further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Tikkun Olam
21 November 2011, 10:32 PM
Nuclear weapons are not one of the "basic rights of self-defense". They are an unfortunate part of modern life.
The United States developed nuclear weapons because they thought Hitler was developing them.

The United States has repeatedly vowed to defend Israel if it were attacked. Therefore Israel, like Japan -
is already covered by the 'nuclear umbrella' of the United States. Israel's decision not to trust the United States
and develop it's own nuclear arsenal is as destabilizing in the Middle East as a decision by Japan to do the same
would be destabilizing in Asia.

Iran, the arch-enemy of Israel, will likely not rest until they have the same "basic rights" as their hated foe.
No good can come from the further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Building nuclear weapons is a military strategy. In economic terms, it is best if EVERYONE has them, because no one will use them. It may be an unfortunate fact that the technology exists, but game theory says building the bombs is defensive, not offensive.

Do you know how many times nuclear bombs have been dropped in warfare? Twice. Just two bombs. Both by America on Japan, when they were but infants in terms of technology. They were immediately recognized as atrocities by the Americans. But America kept on building them, because the Soviet Union was building them, in a game theoretic ploy of "you can't use them on me, because I can use them on you". That's what we called the Cold War (much better than a hot war, for sure).

The only way nuclear bombs can be dangerous in this day is if they're in the hands of irrational nations. Not impossible, but I hope that some (such as the Iranians) are not so irrational as to welcome their own destruction by wishing the end of another. I don't think there will ever be a nuclear-world-war... and America or Israel having nuclear weapons definitely doesn't scare me (nor should it scare anyone, bar Islamists-terrorists who wish to see the end of everyone not like them, including America, Israel and India, among many others).

Spiritualseeker
24 November 2011, 07:02 AM
Namaste,

Tikkun you would make a good Republican candidate, because your arguments are very similar. It is thinking like that which is destroying the planet. During the Cold War we almost launched nukes. We also were going to blow up a US civilian ship and blame it on the Cubans, luckily this was not signed and never happen. Imagine if we would have invaded Cuba (Viva Cuba! :P) and Russia and US would have gotten more intense. All that is needed is a mistake to occur and nukes are launched. The world is sick and we still cling to out dated dogma of war to justify our ways. At the same time I have to see that this is all manifestation of Pure Consciousness.

Om Namah Sivaya

TTCUSM
24 November 2011, 08:16 PM
Why would the Hebrews take their own for slaves? No other nation I can think of has done this.

No other nation has enslaved its own people? Are you sure about that?
Didn't the Greeks and Romans practice slavery? What about the American Civil War?

Tikkun Olam
25 November 2011, 09:51 AM
No other nation has enslaved its own people? Are you sure about that?
Didn't the Greeks and Romans practice slavery? What about the American Civil War?

The Greeks and Romans took slaves as the spoils of war, or from trading with other lands.

In America, Africans were captured and shipped on boats to be slaves.

In neither case were the oppressors taking their own people, they were taking someone else's. Slavery is usually racist; the master shows his dominance by enslaving an "weaker" race.

TTCUSM
14 January 2012, 12:25 PM
The Greeks and Romans took slaves as the spoils of war, or from trading with other lands.

In America, Africans were captured and shipped on boats to be slaves.

In neither case were the oppressors taking their own people, they were taking someone else's. Slavery is usually racist; the master shows his dominance by enslaving an "weaker" race.

TO,

You mentioned slavery in the US.
Chapter 9 (http://christiananswers.net/bible/gen9.html) of Genesis states that all of mankind is descended from three sons of Noah-- Ham was the ancestor of African people, Shem was the ancestor of Semites, and Japheth was the ancestor of Europeans:


20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

cuddledkitty
07 May 2012, 07:46 PM
Namaste,

I think they are treated as a commodity in Abrahamic religions. In Islam you can have a slave, but you must cloth them and feed them the way you wear and eat. This is nice, but the problem is they are still slaves. Muhammad even had a slave (not sure if many know this). Female slaves can be used for sex. You can trade them for money. They work under you. Ali ibn Abu Talib who is the 1st Imam of the Muslims had sex with a slave girl before the last hajj of Muhammad after a battle in which he obtain the booty of war. We all know the followers of Judaism also supported slavery and is justified in the bible. Jesus even uses metaphors by using terms from slavery. Such as the slave and the slave master are not the same. Its not surprising to see many of the Abrahamic followers are obsessed with capitalism.


Om Namah Shivaya

Prophet Muhammad freed over 30,000 slaves according to Sura i may add, he declared it to be one of the highest acts of holiness. And yes i consider Muhammad to be a prophet and yes i still read the Quran, although i put the Vedas above all others :D

cuddledkitty
07 May 2012, 07:54 PM
I personally have no issue with slavery i must say. What is yours is yours especially if you captured it. But a slave is to a master as a dog is to its owner, you must feed "it" bath "it" and care for "it". The fact we call domestic animals "it" is a natural form of slavery we have become common with yet we declare slavery as wrong. Slavery is as natural as eating is required, all nations are built from slavery and you cannot change it. I am quite the naturalist and a slave is property although i wouldnt say commodity although from my understanding the Bible does treat slaves as commodity sadly.

wundermonk
07 May 2012, 09:09 PM
I personally have no issue with slavery i must say. What is yours is yours especially if you captured it. But a slave is to a master as a dog is to its owner, you must feed "it" bath "it" and care for "it". The fact we call domestic animals "it" is a natural form of slavery we have become common with yet we declare slavery as wrong. Slavery is as natural as eating is required, all nations are built from slavery and you cannot change it. I am quite the naturalist and a slave is property although i wouldnt say commodity although from my understanding the Bible does treat slaves as commodity sadly.

Hello cuddledkitty:

Sorry. But this is wrong at so many levels. For one, to say that slavery is "natural" and being OK with it, would be committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Comparison of slavery to owning pets is a sad example of committing a category error. Being a theist, a stronger case can be made that homo sapiens are in some sense "special" and hence one cannot make a comparison of treatment of humans and treatment of animals, especially pets!

Thirdly, in many places in the world, it is ILLEGAL to engage in slave trade. If ancient Hindus/Muslims/Christians engaged in slavery because it was not made illegal, then a nice counter-question to these folks would be to ask them whether they believe their holy books provide any basis of objective morality or not.

cuddledkitty
07 May 2012, 09:29 PM
Hello cuddledkitty:

Sorry. But this is wrong at so many levels. For one, to say that slavery is "natural" and being OK with it, would be committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Comparison of slavery to owning pets is a sad example of committing a category error. Being a theist, a stronger case can be made that homo sapiens are in some sense "special" and hence one cannot make a comparison of treatment of humans and treatment of animals, especially pets!

Thirdly, in many places in the world, it is ILLEGAL to engage in slave trade. If ancient Hindus/Muslims/Christians engaged in slavery because it was not made illegal, then a nice counter-question to these folks would be to ask them whether they believe their holy books provide any basis of objective morality or not.

Ants enslave ants, Lions by definition enslave lioness into submission by killing their children, so yes it happens in nature but im only offering a dual perspective.
The religious aspects vary of course but the Bible and Qur'an do not ban it. I am not being bias here stating "Naturalism" or Natural Order as my supreme reasoning. But i simply just do not find an issue with slavery. My mother was a slave and she was Indonesian and was a child soldier in Saudi Arabia years ago and i am not bias towards the philosophy that supports slavery.

devotee
07 May 2012, 11:24 PM
Ants enslave ants, Lions by definition enslave lioness into submission by killing their children, so yes it happens in nature but im only offering a dual perspective.

Should not human behave better than ants and lions ?


The religious aspects vary of course but the Bible and Qur'an do not ban it. I am not being bias here stating "Naturalism" or Natural Order as my supreme reasoning. But i simply just do not find an issue with slavery. My mother was a slave and she was Indonesian and was a child soldier in Saudi Arabia years ago and i am not bias towards the philosophy that supports slavery.

Did you ask your mother how she felt when she was treated like a slave ? Bible and Q'uran may not ban it and Q'uran also permits having illegal sex with one's female slave (whether she desires it or not) ... but what will you choose ? The Bible, the Q'uran which endorse this or the SanAtan Dharma which tells you to treat everyone equally as there is God in everyone's heart ?

It is you to decide.

OM

arp1
08 May 2012, 12:20 AM
Prophet Muhammad freed over 30,000 slaves according to Sura i may add, he declared it to be one of the highest acts of holiness. And yes i consider Muhammad to be a prophet and yes i still read the Quran, although i put the Vedas above all others :D

Lol ,//Muhammad freed over 30,000 slaves according to Sura // which Sura?
He encouraged Slavery that is the fact. You want Bukari Hadith to prove my statement. //yes i still read the Quran// that is why you are saying Slavery is normal , See How Quran changed your Mind :) . Sure it is from God.

cuddledkitty
08 May 2012, 02:00 AM
Should not human behave better than ants and lions ?



Did you ask your mother how she felt when she was treated like a slave ? Bible and Q'uran may not ban it and Q'uran also permits having illegal sex with one's female slave (whether she desires it or not) ... but what will you choose ? The Bible, the Q'uran which endorse this or the SanAtan Dharma which tells you to treat everyone equally as there is God in everyone's heart ?

It is you to decide.

OM

Well personally i believe in a old law stating what is yours is yours. What you conquer is what belongs to you. This is a basic rule of war and war is not with honor and i find slavery in this condition acceptable whether liked or not simply because people are humans and humans sadly dont consider each other equal nor do i especially in my case if i ever told you my life you would understand this but its long and to pitiful to be put on this forum. My mother's Parents were Indonesian/Indian and Egyptian and at that time and still today Indonesia has been trafficking non muslims to Saudi Arabia and many years ago my mother was that result and trafficked for the purposes of proxy wars. Wars fought indirectly by third parties, incase you dontknow India is the world highest mercenary and private military exporter next to Vietnam, Only China signed the UNMC banning child soldiers and private militaries but no asian country including Japan has signed this agreement. My mother became trapped in this game and my father met her in Egypt etc etc etc and the rest is history......
So my view on this is that my mother was a target of racism and hatred and that alone. My parents and 3 sisters are dead and my mother hated me and anyone person which showed love or compassion and she spent the rest of her lives making me her enemy and anyone that got in her way so the only way i knew of this is by my father and big brother.
Take note that of all religions Hinduism permits slavery the most, incase you dont recall the untouchables. Slaves by debt or war which is something i fully approve and the only circumstance of slavery i find justifiable. So please be aware India and its association with Hinduism puts no Hindu in a position to speak against slavery

wundermonk
08 May 2012, 02:21 AM
So please be aware India and its association with Hinduism puts no Hindu in a position to speak against slavery

http://www.deviantart.com/download/117969474/Double_Facepalm_by_ScotlandForLife.jpg

So, because there was slavery in the past, we should accept it now?

Can you think independently for yourself or will you be a prisoner of your past/holy book, etc?

What exactly is your agenda here on HDF, cuddledkitty?

devotee
08 May 2012, 02:37 AM
incase you dontknow India is the world highest mercenary and private military exporter next to Vietnam

This is a very surprising news ! What is the source ? Have you seen any news where Indians have been caught as mercenaries ? I hope you are not mistaking India with Pakistan.


Take note that of all religions Hinduism permits slavery the most, incase you dont recall the untouchables. Slaves by debt or war which is something i fully approve and the only circumstance of slavery i find justifiable. So please be aware India and its association with Hinduism puts no Hindu in a position to speak against slavery

Aren't we talking of spirituality here ? Untouchability is not endorsed either by the Hindu scriptures or by Hindu saints or by the various sects within Hinduism. Moreover, even untouchables are just that ... they are not slaves.

Please talk to any Hindu worth his name. He won't endorse slavery. I won't say that it was not there in some form or the other in the past ... but that is a political history and not spiritual endorsement of slavery system. Slavery is a crime against humanity and it has no justification whatsoever in whatever form.

You are free to believe in what you want ... you don't need Hindu endorsement to all your views.

OM

sankar
08 May 2012, 02:37 AM
cuddledkitty, IMHO, life and soul is priceless, no one can have right over others freedom at any sort of circumstances.
If hinduism allows it, then for sure hindusim SUCKS!!, but do you have any sources to backup your statement that hinduism allows slavery? sources by i mean scriptures and not any historic events.

2 cents once again :)

Shanti29
08 May 2012, 09:23 AM
http://www.deviantart.com/download/117969474/Double_Facepalm_by_ScotlandForLife.jpg


What exactly is your agenda here on HDF, cuddledkitty?

The agenda is just to stir up trouble. I don't mind trolls but cuddledkitty has to be one of the most dull. Why go into so much detail about the submission in your marriage?

"LOL i dont like Christian preachers especially American ones. But i understand your a loser most likely, but its no joke that Catholicism breaks every biblical rule. jesus is the only priest and the Church as the Church is the people not a organization making money. Jesus is the savoir and the mediator, meaning we say in Jesus's name. What is said was a bit off but it was my bed time anyways. Be sure you know the book not the doctrine as the doctrine is a failure written by men outside of the biblical text, same applies for all faiths even Sanatana Dharma"
*tut tut tut* Sounds like a Jesusfreak with too much time on their hands.


I've been lurking for here a while and will post a proper introduction as soon as I have more time.

yajvan
09 May 2012, 01:25 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Well personally i believe in a old law stating what is yours is yours. What you conquer is what belongs to you.

...what do we really own ? This is from a post from the past.

Looking to the maitreya upaniṣad we find the following wisdom. King Brihadratha decided to go to the forest for sanyas. He prepares his son for the kingdom, and then retires to the forest. Upon doing tapas for some time, the sage Sakayanya muni comes to him ( like a fire without smoke as the story goes). This muni departs the wisdom of Lord Maitreya, the same way as it was given to Sakayanya from the Lord, and that is the knowledge of the SELF.

He explains the SELF, as pure, unbounded and free from states , pure, steadfast, immutable, untarnished, uneager, desire-less, subtle, invisible, non-object, unpossessive, free from states, non-agent, (but) abides like an agent.
The muni also describes the self (of the relative field of life) , that is attached to fruit of actions, white and dark as he calls it 'good and bad' for lack of a better term. Sakayanya says, "Borne along and defiled by the stream of qualities, unsteady, wavering, bewildered, full of desire, distracted, one goes on into the state of self-conceit in thinking, 'This is I' and 'That is mine' one binds himself with himself , as does a bird with a snare."

This notion of 'that being mine' is a distraction of the small self. When we think about it, What can you say you really own? We look to this world and it is made up of the 5 tattva's ( earth, air, fire, water and space). Where have we created any of these elements to say we possess the right to call them our own?

But one says, I pay for the water (apa) tattva that runs to my home, do I not own it? Or the fire that comes from my stove, is it not mine?
Aren't we really paying for a service to use these elements for a time while they're in our mists?

But what of a car? All the tattva's are in an auto. But isn't it 'mine' ? I paid for it? All of these elements come from our good earth, and that has come from our sun. And our sun they say is perhaps a 4 th to 7th generation sun that collected all these elements from past sun's that exploded. All these things come together to offer us the car, water, gas, the shoes we wear, the body we have. All of this has been in the making for billions of years out there in akasha, in space. Where have we created one atom in our contribution of this Universe?

So, how does one look at this? Do we say, I will keep my door open and people can come in and take my chair, it doesn’t matter - its not mine.

This is not what I am advocating. My notion is the following:

These things we possess are useful and allows us a comfortable life - that is a blessing to be counted.
While these things are in our 'possession' it is my humble opinion we should act as stewards and keep these things in good order.
Where we can help others with the application of possessions, the best we can, this makes good common sense.
In the final analysis, all that we touch and come into contact is, itself, an expression of the Supreme and one being mindful of this, is considered wise.praṇām