Sounds like you haven't done very well in ceasing to be a slave
I'm sorry, dear ZDub (peace to you!): is there a mandate somewhere that states I must?
A slave of Christ (still),
SA
Can a Bible Thumper do anything without support from Scripture?
by jay88 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
AGuest
-
Qcmbr
Anyone who seeks slavery knows nothing about real slavery.
-
OnTheWayOut
It's awfully enslaving (may you all have peace!)...
A slave of Christ,
Sounds like you haven't done very well in ceasing to be a slave
Here comes another huge argument about the things said. Shelby, just say "Good burn."
-
AGuest
Anyone who seeks slavery knows nothing about real slavery.
Ah, yes, this again. Well, okay...
That's actually an inaccurate statement, dear QCMBR (peace to you!). For millenia people literally sold themselves into slavery to pay off a debt. There was absolutely NO dishonor in doing so; indeed, it showed the debtor to have honor because he was willing to give himself... his own life... to pay off his debt. No difference here, dear one. I sometimes hated working for my employers... but I did it, because I had debt, had to eat, sleep, needed a place (and sound roof) under which to lay my head. In such cases, I really had no choice (other than welfare, etc., and that's not really me, given that I had other options - work).
That I willingly make myself a slave of the One who gave his life for me is my choice. And no different than, say, the soldier who feel he owes his life to another who saved him on the battlefield. There is nothing dishonorable about feeling personally obligated to serve that one... although the other did not call for it at all and actually released him from it. He gave himself, however, NOT because he had to... but because he WANTED to.
The truth is, however, that ALL of us who work for a living, who depend upon a livelihood for our wages (versus those who depend on, say, a trust or estate)... are slaves:
We just like to tell ourselves that we're "employees" because it sounds better and is an easier word to swallow, given the history of the U.S. institution of slavery. The truth, however, is that one who was "employed"... used to be one who was contracted for his/her services. And thus, pretty much his/her own boss. We've changed THAT situation to be "independent contractor" so as not to confused them with the new "employee."
The word doesn't bother me, however, because I understand the connotation for which I use it: a willing servant who gives his life to pay off a debt. Can I pay off my debt? Nope. The best I can do is, perhaps, as Ruth did with regard to Naomi: make myself available and a servant.
Personally, I think there are more offensive words you and others should be concerned with. Like "theocratic ministry school." And "district/circuit overseers." And "Armageddon." And "trinity." And "rapture." And words like these. For obvious reasons, including that none of them exists in writings that purport to encourage, even support them.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant (for I am not ashamed to be your servant) and a slave of Christ (ditto),
SA
-
Qcmbr
Your ultra narrow definition of slavery is still immoral. I do agree with you however, that you are fettered to a concept and if you wish to add the title of 'Slaver' to Jesus then who am I to argue with that.
Debt slavery:
Prior to the early modern age, feudal and serfdom systems were the predominant political and economic systems in Europe. These systems were based on the holding of all land in fief or fee, and the resulting relation of lord to vassal, and was characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture. Many historians have argued that this system was also established in some Latin American countries, following European settlement.
A modernization of the feudal system was "peonage", where debtors were bound in servitude to their creditors until their debts were paid. Although peons - from a technical point of view - are only obligated to a creditor monetarily, from a practical perspective, the resultant relationship of a peon to the creditor is destructive of basic personal autonomy within the society.According to Anti-Slavery International, "A person enters debt bondage when their labour is demanded as a means of repayment of a loan, or of money given in advance. Usually, people are tricked or trapped into working for no pay or very little pay (in return for such a loan), in conditions which violate their human rights. Invariably, the value of the work done by a bonded labourer is greater that the original sum of money borrowed or advanced."
Debt bondage is a form of disguised slavery in which the subject is not legally owned, but is instead bound by a contract to perform labor to work off a debt, under terms that make it impossible to completely retire the debt and thereby escape from the contract.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Debt_slaveryPlease do yourself a favour and read why slavery is so evil and offensive to moral people http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/default.aspx
If I called myself a 'victim for Christ' or said I'm happy to be 'raped by god' I could try and use clever words to try and say it meant in a loving way but hopefully you would see this as just wrong and an insult to real victims.
-
AGuest
Dear Qcmbr... again, peace to you!
I am a moral person. I am also the descendant of U.S. slaves, on both sides and so totally understand what YOUR connonation depicts. I see the result of it everyday just down the street from my house as well as in my usual profession (low-income housing administrator). Even in my extended family. I am also of a culture that doesn't weep and wail when I hear others use a certain form of the "n" word (and I say "the 'n' word, for YOUR benefit because it blows me away that the word can't be stated, even when one is opposing it - but that's your... ummmm... angst, not mine). If I were to say, howver, that I was someone's (presumably my husband's) love slave (no, not sex slave - I didn't go there)... and that I totally enjoyed being so, I doubt you would have problem with that.
Be all of that as it may, the DIFFERENCE between myself and the definitions that you gave above is (1) that those are compulsory and demanded by the "master", and (2) they are modern definitions. The definition I use predates even your fuedal reference, by millenia.
I openly profess that I have a master, Christ, and that I am his willing slave... and so a fellow slave... of the Apostles, Paul, and every other member of his Body... as well as Michael, the angel who gave John his revelation... and that I am so BY CHOICE. MY choice. Now, I realize that it would most probably sit a tad better with you if I said "servant of Christ," but that really isn't accurate. I am YOUR servant... but I am much more than to him. At least, I hope so. Because it is FOR him that I can and do make myself YOUR servant. HIS love for you. And so just like I would not hesitate to serve you... I don't hesitate to SLAVE... for him. If you took a look at the posts I've made over the years... as well as if you knew what I am privileged to do outside of this forum, you would better understand.
But the bottom line, however, beyond that fact that if all you and others can find to take issue with is what I refer to myself is so... well, weak and silly... is that I don't answer to you... and for that reason don't really care as to your perception of what I choose to call myself. I am not a woman who gives much credence to what people "think" of me, as my posts surely demonstrate. My mind... and heart... are a little more "open" than most and so I am not as easily offended by things... and particularly not words... and specifically not the words I CHOOSE to use to identify myself.
So, now, please... take your "high" morality and use it to bash someone else... someone who believes that what YOU believe about them will add or take away a cubit from their lifespan. But I am not one such person.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant... and a [even more willing, now] slave of Christ,
SA
-
Qcmbr
AGuest - I have no issue with your own internal world. You however, insist of trying to include me (you are NOT my servant - I find the idea utterly morally repugnant) and you wilfully misuse a phrase to give yourself a title. As a member of Amnesty International and someone who utterly hates slavery in all its forms I felt a need to point this out to you. I have done so. You have not listened.
-
-
designs
Bible Thumpers like Titles clutching their Bibles, Rosary, Prayers and Singing....its a religious sort of thing, ah yes I'm remembering the lost years-
-
AGuest
AGuest - I have no issue with your own internal world.
Obviously, you do, dear Qcmbr (again, peace to you!). People who HAVE no issue with something, TAKE no issue with that something... or the one who presents it. You have an issue with what I choose to call MYSELF. Now, I can see if you had a issue with me calling someone else a slave... for any reason (unless, of course, that one doesn't mind, either)...
You however, insist of trying to include me (you are NOT my servant - I find the idea utterly morally repugnant)
Not a problem. I will no longer refer to myself as your servant (although, that doesn't actually change a thing)...
and you wilfully misuse a phrase to give yourself a title.
A title... Ummm... no, I have several titles already in my life, actually. Professionally as well as personally. But it is not a designation - no one conferred it upon me. It is merely an acknowledgement of my service. That you take offense, however, to what I choose to call myself is, I must admit, quite curious. And, again, if it is the ONLY thing you can find to take issue with, I would say you've got way too much time on your hands, IMHO...
As a member of Amnesty International and someone who utterly hates slavery in all its forms I felt a need to point this out to you.
Forgive me for being so, well, honest... but I am sure you KNOW "all its forms." I am thinking there is at least one, the one I choose, that you are quite UNfamiliar with...
I have done so. You have not listened.
You pointed out to me how YOU feel about something I call myself. Tell me, am I really supposed go "listen" to that? Seriously? I don't know you.... and you don't know me. And truth be told, I am JUST as offended that you deign to tell me what I can and should... or should not... call myself as you might be about me doing so. I might take offense that you call yourself "Qcmbr". Tell me, would that change anything? Would you choose a different name as a result? There are people here who have potentially offensive names, avatars, and/or post potentially offensive words and pictures. Who, though, am I to take offense? They don't answer to me.
And so I've pretty much said. It is you, then, who hasn't listened.
Again, peace to you.
A slave of Christ,
SA