• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The curse of the forbidden fruit.

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
"The enlightened Americans actually adopted the worst model of slavery that ever existed."
Completely irrelevant. We are discussing slavery in the Bible.
Are you going to tell me there is a moral form of slavery? Whether there are varying degrees of immorality between one form of slavery and another is not even an argument. Slavery is either moral or immoral. It is a binary choice.


.

Hi

Completely irrelevant. We are discussing slavery in the Bible.
Are you going to tell me there is a moral form of slavery? Whether there are varying degrees of immorality between one form of slavery and another is not even an argument. Slavery is either moral or immoral. It is a binary choice.

I referred to the American model merely to point out that there is a type of hysterical guilt that clouds the American perspective on this.Europeans are much more pragmatic as they know that we were ALL slaves at some time in history......... older cultures recognize this and are not so guilty.
.........................................................

It is far from clear that slavery was Immoral in the context of the ancient world. This isn't even contentious stuff in the literature. Any scholarly work on the socio/economic make up of the ancient world actually points to its necessity as a way of large social organisation. The Pharoah owned ALL the Egyptians so HE was responsible for feeding the nation and we get CIVILIZATION.
Organized mass labour is the foundation of civilization without it you are still in pre historic hunter gather models.

I do not LIKE it but they are the facts. No slavery in the past........ no modern world today.
If you wish to dispute that then read Slavery- A world History or another authoritative work on the subject and at least come at the subject from some from of reality in history.
.........................................................

"A declaration by the Christians to ban slavery would have had no effect on the Roman system"
So what? the Christians banned murder and adultery with out regard to whether it would affect the Roman empire. Why would god care about the Roman empire? Either slavery is moral or immoral. Whether it affects the Romans or not is of absolutely no consequence.

The consequence would have been Mass Crucifixion of all christian slaves. The example of Sparticus' rebelion was very live in the slave mind. Freeing your slave may have condemned them to starvation there was not much wage labour type of work going around. How can you even get close to No Consequence.
..................................................................

"You have just defeated an Assyrian force in battle and captured 20 000 hardarse Assyrian footmen....etc. This is a non-sequitur. If this is a valid reason for slavery, then the United States should by now have enslaved England, Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Mexico (yes, we invaded Mexico) and a number of other nations. I will counter with this bible passage instead of making up another hypothetical:

This is NOT hypothetical it was the realpolitic situation of the ancient world. To use a 20th century example to try and discredit a bronze age situation is pretty weak. Railways and international shipping solved many of the logistical problems of mass incarceration. NOT viable before industralisation.

Tell me what YOU would do with them if not enslavement or slaughter..... this is where i never get an answer.
You indicated that you were trained to defend me... then what does your training indicate in this situation taking into account the logistical constraints of the time. It is a REAL issue NOT hypothetical. I can tell you what the Summerian, Babylonian, Elamite, Hurrian, Mittani, Hittite, Egyptian, Pheonicean, Amarite Akkadian and Assyrian cultures decided was the answer. But i think you can guess.


And i KNOW you will not answer the challenge, you'll bluster off on some tangent, because you KNOW the only available answer to most of these situations is slaughter or slavery.
............................................................
I will counter with this bible passage instead of making up another hypothetical:

BOTH sides were playing by the same rules. Bronze age warfare was brutal on ALL sides i don't see why you only single out one side.The idea that certain conflicts have a no quarter given aspect is not unreasonable nor is it immoral. Both sides were taking their chances were they not?

Is that not actually the definition of morality a fair fight where both are subject to the same outcomes?

That's how the Greeks organised there domestic warfare a 1000 years later and with much "thinking about the moral issues". They came to the conclusion that if you played that game then you put up with the consequences. Losers are the slaves of the winners. Now play.
Entire Legions captured in the wars between Rome and Persia CHOSE enslavement over execution many times, going on to become loyal Mamalluke slave soldiers and were PROUD of there station.

The claim that slavery is IMMORAL regardless of the circumstances INSULTS those who chose slavery as a means of self preservation.... This is NOT easy stuff like you seem to be claiming. To some when confronted with death the 'morality" of personal liberty was trumped by the moral of survival as the guiding motivation.

........................................................................

This is another hyperbolic statement. The God of the Bible did NOT send his people out to conquer and enslave other peoples....

Other than the initial occupation of the promised land which you quote show me where the Jewish state engaged in wars of expansion or pillaging as the aggressor.
1000 years as a middle eastern Kingdom you should be able to show dozens of times when they tried to expand like ALL there neighbours. Why did they not follow the example of EVERY nation around them and have a go at Empire? Surley if they were hateful raping mauradures pushed by a bloodthirsty God then they would have done what all there neighbours did because of their bloodthirsty gods. There was a difference between Jehovah and Baal, Molech, Ashur and that lot.
..................................................................................
There is NO good slavery. Period.

ABSOLUTELY....... but it may have been a necessary step to where we are. That is what serious scholarship of the ancient world and human societal development has concluded anyway.

Now i am happy to debate the "may have been necessary" aspect but you seem to think that there were NO REASONS other than some brutal psychopathic obsession from the God of the bible to enslave people. Whenever i bring up social, economic or geo-political reasons you REFUSE to address them.

Try and flesh out an economic model without some form of bondage in the ancient world.... IT CAN NOT BE DONE. And if you think it could have then put your words on the page and we will see how far we get.... Now that one is a challenge.
........................................................................
.
Just realized you had mentioned Roman slavery as somehow a nicer form of slavery. Is that the form of slavery god sanctioned? No. It is a rather poor defense of god to point out that the Romans had a more moral system than he did. You might want to rethink that one.

Was the sending of criminals and those who the Romans would consider domestic terrorists to forced labour a moral decision or not? The fact that many various forms of it have been debated and parsed by many cultures, societies and nations shows that it is anything but a black and white issue.

.......................................................
Is the Sweat Shop system, which is a form of economic slavery an immoral thing or has it allowed an entire generation to begin the climb to modernity.... is that black and white?
I was hoping that we could wade into the Grey on this topic and jot just repeat the mantra slavery is bad as if that is actually saying anything
................................................................
it would be unkind not to point out that your arguments do not even begin to hold water in regard to god's stance on slavery. If you continue to use these on other atheists, some will not be so kind in their rebuttals, and I will have played an indirect part in that by not having told you.

What would be kind and what would prove to me that you are correct is a WORKABLE alternative.
It seems your ONLY point is that slavery was/is Bad.... well duh.
If you have an unkind rebuttal that shows an alternative then have at it.

Peace
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Hi

Completely irrelevant. We are discussing slavery in the Bible.
Are you going to tell me there is a moral form of slavery? Whether there are varying degrees of immorality between one form of slavery and another is not even an argument. Slavery is either moral or immoral. It is a binary choice.

I referred to the American model merely to point out that there is a type of hysterical guilt that clouds the American perspective on this.Europeans are much more pragmatic as they know that we were ALL slaves at some time in history......... older cultures recognize this and are not so guilty.
.........................................................

It is far from clear that slavery was Immoral in the context of the ancient world. This isn't even contentious stuff in the literature. Any scholarly work on the socio/economic make up of the ancient world actually points to its necessity as a way of large social organisation. The Pharoah owned ALL the Egyptians so HE was responsible for feeding the nation and we get CIVILIZATION.
Organized mass labour is the foundation of civilization without it you are still in pre historic hunter gather models.

I do not LIKE it but they are the facts. No slavery in the past........ no modern world today.
If you wish to dispute that then read Slavery- A world History or another authoritative work on the subject and at least come at the subject from some from of reality in history.
.........................................................

"A declaration by the Christians to ban slavery would have had no effect on the Roman system"
So what? the Christians banned murder and adultery with out regard to whether it would affect the Roman empire. Why would god care about the Roman empire? Either slavery is moral or immoral. Whether it affects the Romans or not is of absolutely no consequence.

The consequence would have been Mass Crucifixion of all christian slaves. The example of Sparticus' rebelion was very live in the slave mind. Freeing your slave may have condemned them to starvation there was not much wage labour type of work going around. How can you even get close to No Consequence.
..................................................................

"You have just defeated an Assyrian force in battle and captured 20 000 hardarse Assyrian footmen....etc. This is a non-sequitur. If this is a valid reason for slavery, then the United States should by now have enslaved England, Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Mexico (yes, we invaded Mexico) and a number of other nations. I will counter with this bible passage instead of making up another hypothetical:

This is NOT hypothetical it was the realpolitic situation of the ancient world. To use a 20th century example to try and discredit a bronze age situation is pretty weak. Railways and international shipping solved many of the logistical problems of mass incarceration. NOT viable before industralisation.

Tell me what YOU would do with them if not enslavement or slaughter..... this is where i never get an answer.
You indicated that you were trained to defend me... then what does your training indicate in this situation taking into account the logistical constraints of the time. It is a REAL issue NOT hypothetical. I can tell you what the Summerian, Babylonian, Elamite, Hurrian, Mittani, Hittite, Egyptian, Pheonicean, Amarite Akkadian and Assyrian cultures decided was the answer. But i think you can guess.


And i KNOW you will not answer the challenge, you'll bluster off on some tangent, because you KNOW the only available answer to most of these situations is slaughter or slavery.
............................................................
I will counter with this bible passage instead of making up another hypothetical:

BOTH sides were playing by the same rules. Bronze age warfare was brutal on ALL sides i don't see why you only single out one side.The idea that certain conflicts have a no quarter given aspect is not unreasonable nor is it immoral. Both sides were taking their chances were they not?

Is that not actually the definition of morality a fair fight where both are subject to the same outcomes?

That's how the Greeks organised there domestic warfare a 1000 years later and with much "thinking about the moral issues". They came to the conclusion that if you played that game then you put up with the consequences. Losers are the slaves of the winners. Now play.
Entire Legions captured in the wars between Rome and Persia CHOSE enslavement over execution many times, going on to become loyal Mamalluke slave soldiers and were PROUD of there station.

The claim that slavery is IMMORAL regardless of the circumstances INSULTS those who chose slavery as a means of self preservation.... This is NOT easy stuff like you seem to be claiming. To some when confronted with death the 'morality" of personal liberty was trumped by the moral of survival as the guiding motivation.

........................................................................

This is another hyperbolic statement. The God of the Bible did NOT send his people out to conquer and enslave other peoples....

Other than the initial occupation of the promised land which you quote show me where the Jewish state engaged in wars of expansion or pillaging as the aggressor.
1000 years as a middle eastern Kingdom you should be able to show dozens of times when they tried to expand like ALL there neighbours. Why did they not follow the example of EVERY nation around them and have a go at Empire? Surley if they were hateful raping mauradures pushed by a bloodthirsty God then they would have done what all there neighbours did because of their bloodthirsty gods. There was a difference between Jehovah and Baal, Molech, Ashur and that lot.
..................................................................................
There is NO good slavery. Period.

ABSOLUTELY....... but it may have been a necessary step to where we are. That is what serious scholarship of the ancient world and human societal development has concluded anyway.

Now i am happy to debate the "may have been necessary" aspect but you seem to think that there were NO REASONS other than some brutal psychopathic obsession from the God of the bible to enslave people. Whenever i bring up social, economic or geo-political reasons you REFUSE to address them.

Try and flesh out an economic model without some form of bondage in the ancient world.... IT CAN NOT BE DONE. And if you think it could have then put your words on the page and we will see how far we get.... Now that one is a challenge.
........................................................................
.
Just realized you had mentioned Roman slavery as somehow a nicer form of slavery. Is that the form of slavery god sanctioned? No. It is a rather poor defense of god to point out that the Romans had a more moral system than he did. You might want to rethink that one.

Was the sending of criminals and those who the Romans would consider domestic terrorists to forced labour a moral decision or not? The fact that many various forms of it have been debated and parsed by many cultures, societies and nations shows that it is anything but a black and white issue.

.......................................................
Is the Sweat Shop system, which is a form of economic slavery an immoral thing or has it allowed an entire generation to begin the climb to modernity.... is that black and white?
I was hoping that we could wade into the Grey on this topic and jot just repeat the mantra slavery is bad as if that is actually saying anything
................................................................
it would be unkind not to point out that your arguments do not even begin to hold water in regard to god's stance on slavery. If you continue to use these on other atheists, some will not be so kind in their rebuttals, and I will have played an indirect part in that by not having told you.

What would be kind and what would prove to me that you are correct is a WORKABLE alternative.
It seems your ONLY point is that slavery was/is Bad.... well duh.
If you have an unkind rebuttal that shows an alternative then have at it.

Peace

I thought you said you were well versed in the slavery argument. It appears not to be the case.

You have just admitted in your closing statement that slavery is immoral, which was my point from the very beginning.

My main point from the beginning of this conversation was that if a god promotes an immoral thing, then the god is by extension immoral.
You have just admitted in your own post that your god did promote an immoral thing. "It seems your ONLY point is that slavery was/is Bad.... well duh." Yes, that is exactly my point and has been from the first line of this discussion of slavery. I have made no other argument.

Although you have conceded that my argument that slavery is immoral is true, I will address some of your points.


You have also tried above to make the point that if everybody was engaged in slavery, that makes it moral. No, it doesn't. All nations contain murderers...does that make murder okay? No. And just because something is popular, that does not change the morality of it.

Re: Roman slavery. You are the one who brought it up as a "nicer or better form of slavery". Your contention that all Roman slaves were criminals is patently false. Households had slaves. those slaves were not criminals. But in the end, it just does not matter for the discussion. I am referring to the specific form of slavery sanctioned by your god. He did not sanction the Roman form, but a worse form, by your own admission (since the Roman form was deemed by you as "nicer".)
A workable alternative to slavery? Freedom would be the one we espouse today. Laws that prohibit the owning of another human being? Providing rehabilitation and support for the unfortunate among us? It took humans to figure out that slavery was wrong and to legislate against it, sometimes with great suffering and bloodshed involved to make it happen. It is unfortunate that your god was so weak and/or so immoral that he could not even bring himself to make a simple pronouncement against it.

Sweat shops? Always a bad thing. Almost as bad as the slavery that your god promoted.

I have not argued anywhere that your god was brutal and
psychopathic, only that it was immoral for sanctioning an immoral thing. But I note that you managed to make the connection without prompting.
 
Last edited:

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
I thought you said you were well versed in the slavery argument. It appears not to be the case.

You have just admitted in your closing statement that slavery is immoral, which was my point from the very beginning.

My main point from the beginning of this conversation was that if a god promotes an immoral thing, then the god is by extension immoral.
You have just admitted in your own post that your god did promote an immoral thing. "It seems your ONLY point is that slavery was/is Bad.... well duh." Yes, that is exactly my point and has been from the first line of this discussion of slavery. I have made no other argument.

Although you have conceded that my argument that slavery is immoral is true, I will address some of your points.


You have also tried above to make the point that if everybody was engaged in slavery, that makes it moral. No, it doesn't. All nations contain murderers...does that make murder okay? No. And just because something is popular, that does not change the morality of it.

Re: Roman slavery. You are the one who brought it up as a "nicer or better form of slavery". Your contention that all Roman slaves were criminals is patently false. Households had slaves. those slaves were not criminals. But in the end, it just does not matter for the discussion. I am referring to the specific form of slavery sanctioned by your god. He did not sanction the Roman form, but a worse form, by your own admission (since the Roman form was deemed by you as "nicer".)
A workable alternative to slavery? Freedom would be the one we espouse today. Laws that prohibit the owning of another human being? Providing rehabilitation and support for the unfortunate among us? It took humans to figure out that slavery was wrong and to legislate against it, sometimes with great suffering and bloodshed involved to make it happen. It is unfortunate that your god was so weak and/or so immoral that he could not even bring himself to make a simple pronouncement against it.

Sweat shops? Always a bad thing. Almost as bad as the slavery that your god promoted.

I have not argued anywhere that your god was brutal and
psychopathic, only that it was immoral for sanctioning an immoral thing. But I note that you managed to make the connection without prompting.

Hi
I do know a lot about slavery and the history of the institutionl which is why i can say that the scholarly agreement is that slavery was a NECESSARY step in mankinds development...... without it there would have been NO civilization.
Please address this and tell me why you believe this to be WRONG...... other wise the rest of your of your points are arguing against the wind.
..............................................
You have also tried above to make the point that if everybody was engaged in slavery, that makes it moral. No, it doesn't.
Hmmmmm..... It seems that you believe your retrospective judgement makes what they believe was moral at the time somehow immoral.
Do you think that if you had been brought up in the ancient world you would see it as the same?
That morality can change is not a strange statement so why do you not consider the viewpoint of the people you judge as immoral?.
......................................................

I am referring to the specific form of slavery sanctioned by your god. He did not sanction the Roman form, but a worse form, by your own admission
You missed a couple of things to get to here.........
First....... i was only pointing out that Roman slavery was better than the chatel slavery that your American forbears chose. Hoping to free some of the american bias from the discussion.


Second....
the specific form of slavery sanctioned by your god
What "specific form" do you mean. There were various manifestations from, debt slavery, voluntary enslavement, periodic slavery, judicial slavery and military slavery.

This is why scholars agree that the institution was necessary it was a multi functional solution to many differing problems. The ancient world did not have that many levers to pull.
I noticed that you did not address the ECONOMIC NECESSITY of slavery in the ancient world...... Do these things not matter somehow?
If you can not explain how the world would have functioned without human bondage then what the hell are you saying really?

............................................................................................
A workable alternative to slavery? Freedom would be the one we espouse today. Laws that prohibit the owning of another human being?
And here we are..... YOU SEEM COMMITTED to not addressing this question in its context.
Gauis Marius, Caesars maternal uncle, intercepted a coalition of Cimbri and Teutons raiders in the late 100's bce.... He won the conflict and was left with 150 000 armed and trained captives.
So you think he should have LET THEM GO... that's the solution... really?
He enslaved them BTW.... 340 000 had already been killed.

I thought that you would have addressed to military practicalities with some honesty.


Providing rehabilitation and support for the unfortunate among us?

And how would that work exactly you can't just float some airy fairy unworkable feel good sentiment and conclude that you are moral just because you were thinking compassionately. There was NO mechanism to deliver such welfare in the ancient world.
.,.....................................................................................................
You have just admitted in your own post that your god did promote an immoral thing. "It seems your ONLY point is that slavery was/is Bad.... well duh."

This is where i think you are confused. You have equated BAD with IMMORAL. This is a mistake at the foundation of your argument.
There are many bad things that are necessary in this world. I bet that you consider war a Bad thing but not Immoral because it is, in your opinion, NECESSARY at times.
I admitted that slavery was Bad but Necessary.... how you could see that as admitting to the moral thing, it is just your seeming inability to separate the two concepts.
..................................................

We began with a discussion about the forbidden fruit, that should have a least set some sort of understanding of the Biblical explanation of why things developed as they did. I know that you know the Bible indicates that mankind will have to face the "Good's and Evil's" of this world making their own decisions and dealing with the consequences. That is their being cast out into the world... we discussed this and i thought that you agreed that was how the Bible should be read.

How can you then blame GOD for promoting something that was obviously a human decision. By Abrahams time mankind had already decided their way to deal with this stuff. Slavery was NOT Gods idea.
.,...................................................................
In conclusion other than saying that from a 21st century perspective human bondage was a bad thing you have not addressed any of the issues that ANCIENT slavery dealt with in any manner at all.... namely

1. The problem of conquered combatants...... Just let them GO is no workable answer in any scenario of the ancient world.

2 The problem of mass organization of directed labour........ state control of the agricultural output was essential for civilization. This could not be done on an individual basis
3 The problem of debt repayment......... How is this dealt with in a pre currency world where most payments are "in kind"
4 The problem of homelessness, vagrancy, destitution.............. there were no mechanisms for the delivery of welfare across vast distances.
5 The problem of Judicial punishment..... no prisons for mass incarceration
6 The problem of fines......... not a currency based system. labour was money in a very real sense.


Was slavery Bad.... YES.
Was slavery necessary........ YES
Is slavery Immoral in todays world YES
Was it immoral in the ancient world...... NO
Is it a Binary issue......... NO
You wish to fight this fight on the battlefield of Black and White..... NO we are in the GREY here.

Peace










 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Hi
I do know a lot about slavery and the history of the institutionl which is why i can say that the scholarly agreement is that slavery was a NECESSARY step in mankinds development...... without it there would have been NO civilization.
Please address this and tell me why you believe this to be WRONG...... other wise the rest of your of your points are arguing against the wind.
..............................................
You have also tried above to make the point that if everybody was engaged in slavery, that makes it moral. No, it doesn't.
Hmmmmm..... It seems that you believe your retrospective judgement makes what they believe was moral at the time somehow immoral.
Do you think that if you had been brought up in the ancient world you would see it as the same?
That morality can change is not a strange statement so why do you not consider the viewpoint of the people you judge as immoral?.
......................................................

I am referring to the specific form of slavery sanctioned by your god. He did not sanction the Roman form, but a worse form, by your own admission
You missed a couple of things to get to here.........
First....... i was only pointing out that Roman slavery was better than the chatel slavery that your American forbears chose. Hoping to free some of the american bias from the discussion.


Second....
the specific form of slavery sanctioned by your god
What "specific form" do you mean. There were various manifestations from, debt slavery, voluntary enslavement, periodic slavery, judicial slavery and military slavery.

This is why scholars agree that the institution was necessary it was a multi functional solution to many differing problems. The ancient world did not have that many levers to pull.
I noticed that you did not address the ECONOMIC NECESSITY of slavery in the ancient world...... Do these things not matter somehow?
If you can not explain how the world would have functioned without human bondage then what the hell are you saying really?

............................................................................................
A workable alternative to slavery? Freedom would be the one we espouse today. Laws that prohibit the owning of another human being?
And here we are..... YOU SEEM COMMITTED to not addressing this question in its context.
Gauis Marius, Caesars maternal uncle, intercepted a coalition of Cimbri and Teutons raiders in the late 100's bce.... He won the conflict and was left with 150 000 armed and trained captives.
So you think he should have LET THEM GO... that's the solution... really?
He enslaved them BTW.... 340 000 had already been killed.

I thought that you would have addressed to military practicalities with some honesty.


Providing rehabilitation and support for the unfortunate among us?

And how would that work exactly you can't just float some airy fairy unworkable feel good sentiment and conclude that you are moral just because you were thinking compassionately. There was NO mechanism to deliver such welfare in the ancient world.
.,.....................................................................................................
You have just admitted in your own post that your god did promote an immoral thing. "It seems your ONLY point is that slavery was/is Bad.... well duh."

This is where i think you are confused. You have equated BAD with IMMORAL. This is a mistake at the foundation of your argument.
There are many bad things that are necessary in this world. I bet that you consider war a Bad thing but not Immoral because it is, in your opinion, NECESSARY at times.
I admitted that slavery was Bad but Necessary.... how you could see that as admitting to the moral thing, it is just your seeming inability to separate the two concepts.
..................................................

We began with a discussion about the forbidden fruit, that should have a least set some sort of understanding of the Biblical explanation of why things developed as they did. I know that you know the Bible indicates that mankind will have to face the "Good's and Evil's" of this world making their own decisions and dealing with the consequences. That is their being cast out into the world... we discussed this and i thought that you agreed that was how the Bible should be read.

How can you then blame GOD for promoting something that was obviously a human decision. By Abrahams time mankind had already decided their way to deal with this stuff. Slavery was NOT Gods idea.
.,...................................................................
In conclusion other than saying that from a 21st century perspective human bondage was a bad thing you have not addressed any of the issues that ANCIENT slavery dealt with in any manner at all.... namely

1. The problem of conquered combatants...... Just let them GO is no workable answer in any scenario of the ancient world.

2 The problem of mass organization of directed labour........ state control of the agricultural output was essential for civilization. This could not be done on an individual basis
3 The problem of debt repayment......... How is this dealt with in a pre currency world where most payments are "in kind"
4 The problem of homelessness, vagrancy, destitution.............. there were no mechanisms for the delivery of welfare across vast distances.
5 The problem of Judicial punishment..... no prisons for mass incarceration
6 The problem of fines......... not a currency based system. labour was money in a very real sense.

Was slavery Bad.... YES.
Was slavery necessary........ YES
Is slavery Immoral in todays world YES
Was it immoral in the ancient world...... NO
Is it a Binary issue......... NO
You wish to fight this fight on the battlefield of Black and White..... NO we are in the GREY here.

Peace










Having trouble admitting slavery is immoral? Why the switch to the word "bad"?

All of your excuses for immoral behavior listed above have other solutions. We have them today. Is man smarter than your god? God couldn't figure out how to do these things? How weak.
Why do you keep bringing up the captive soldier thing as if that were the way slaves were always acquired? And why do you think that makes it okay? I have already addressed your contention that all slaves were captured soldiers by showing directly from the Old testament that that was not the case. So drop that and speak about the slaves I have asked you about, instead.
So you believe it was moral for god to tell the Israelites to invade other culture's towns and kill everyone, including children and babies and take the virgin girls as slaves?
You believe it was moral to buy slaves from the nations around them? You believe it was moral for god to tell the Israelites that it was okay to beat a slave as long as they didn't die for a couple of days?
You are dodging and weaving to avoid the basic question. IS IT MORAL TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AS PERSONAL PROPERTY?
Apparently I am more moral than your god or you when it comes to slavery.I DO believe it is immoral and I DO believe it would be an immoral god that would sanction slavery. I believe it is Immoral to excuse such behavior in others as well.
. You yourself have already admitted in your last post that slavery is an immoral thing. You admit that your god legislated for this moral thing to occur. How is this so hard for you to understand after admitting these are both true?
Someone who does an immoral thing is immoral. Your god clearly did an immoral thing by promoting slavery. That makes your god immoral in that regard. There is NO CONTEXT in which slavery is moral. You can argue that it was expedient for this or that reason, but you cannot argue that it was moral to own slaves without becoming immoral yourself in the process.

I have no idea how to reach someone who is being so intellectually dishonest. The cognitive dissonance must be horrific.



There is no grey here....something cannot be kind of moral or kind of immoral. What an absurd argument!!! Morality is a binary question. Something either is moral or it is not.
 
Last edited:

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Having trouble admitting slavery is immoral? Why the switch to the word "bad"?

All of your excuses for immoral behavior listed above have other solutions. We have them today. Is man smarter than your god? God couldn't figure out how to do these things? How weak.
Why do you keep bringing up the captive soldier thing as if that were the way slaves were always acquired? And why do you think that makes it okay? I have already addressed your contention that all slaves were captured soldiers by showing directly from the Old testament that that was not the case. So drop that and speak about the slaves I have asked you about, instead.
So you believe it was moral for god to tell the Israelites to invade other culture's towns and kill everyone, including children and babies and take the virgin girls as slaves?
You believe it was moral to buy slaves from the nations around them? You believe it was moral for god to tell the Israelites that it was okay to beat a slave as long as they didn't die for a couple of days?
You are dodging and weaving to avoid the basic question. IS IT MORAL TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AS PERSONAL PROPERTY?
Apparently I am more moral than your god or you when it comes to slavery.I DO believe it is immoral and I DO believe it would be an immoral god that would sanction slavery. I believe it is Immoral to excuse such behavior in others as well.
. You yourself have already admitted in your last post that slavery is an immoral thing. You admit that your god legislated for this moral thing to occur. How is this so hard for you to understand after admitting these are both true?
Someone who does an immoral thing is immoral. Your god clearly did an immoral thing by promoting slavery. That makes your god immoral in that regard. There is NO CONTEXT in which slavery is moral. You can argue that it was expedient for this or that reason, but you cannot argue that it was moral to own slaves without becoming immoral yourself in the process.

I have no idea how to reach someone who is being so intellectually dishonest. The cognitive dissonance must be horrific.



There is no grey here....something cannot be kind of moral or kind of immoral. What an absurd argument!!! Morality is a binary question. Something either is moral or it is not.

Hi
I have said that the scholary consensus is that Slavery was NECESSARY to human civilizational development. You REFUSE to address that from the start.
...............................................
All of your excuses for immoral behavior listed above have other solutions. We have them today.
Today,s solutions do not work in the Bronze age world... it is as simple as that.
Your only answer you have to the Problem of Bronze age warfare is to let the captives go. That is NOT A WORKABLE ANSWER.
Your answer to destitution is a welfare state in a world where that was IMPOSSIBLE.
You had no answer to debt slavery.
You had no comment on how to organize mass labour

You gave NO solutions.
..............................................................
IS IT MORAL TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AS PERSONAL PROPERTY?
YES. It was the lessor of TWO evils. Many chose it rather than death. Unless you believe that all humanity was immoral before Lincoln. I actually cut them some slack as i realize how hard survival was in the ancient world.
If you and another person came to a mutual agreement where is the moral dilemma in that?
If you agree to fight and the winner owns the loser where is the moral dilemma in that?
If you take on a debt knowing that your body is your collateral where is the moral dilemma in that?
If you are guaranteed a plot of land in return for service and you agree where is the moral dilemma in that?
......................................................

So you believe it was moral for god to tell the Israelites to invade other culture's towns and kill everyone, including children and babies and take the virgin girls as slaves?
YES. These were the rules of engagement that ALL parties agreed upon.
What can be more moral than that?

And they only invaded ONE culture over a very short period. All the other violence was defensive. Yet you WILL NOT acknowledge that fact.
......................................................................

You believe it was moral to buy slaves from the nations around them?
A reference please.
...........................................................
Apparently I am more moral than your god or you when it comes to slavery.
You are more moral than all our ancestors it seems... that's a big claim.
They did not see it the same way. Nor do i. I have more faith in people than you do it seems.
..............................................................

God couldn't figure out how to do these things? How weak.
I TOLD YOU this is always where the discussion regresses to. Even after mentioning the GARDEN and the FRUIT and what we AGREED was the outcome of the story. How can you come out with the CRAP that your God is to weak.From the casting out from Eden YOU KNOW that HUMAN DECISIONS are how we get to slavery, warfare and the like. I thought we AGREED that God did NOT step into human affairs to shield them from the consequences of their decisions.
Your LOGICAL FALLACY is thinking that the God of the Bible is allowed to dictate universal human conduct within the fallen world. NOPE. AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT.
.........................................................

There is no grey here....something cannot be kind of moral or kind of immoral.
There is no grey in the consideration of human bondage over the course of human history and i am the one being intellectually dishonest. Ok.

Peace.
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
Having trouble admitting slavery is immoral? Why the switch to the word "bad"?

All of your excuses for immoral behavior listed above have other solutions. We have them today. Is man smarter than your god? God couldn't figure out how to do these things? How weak.
Why do you keep bringing up the captive soldier thing as if that were the way slaves were always acquired? And why do you think that makes it okay? I have already addressed your contention that all slaves were captured soldiers by showing directly from the Old testament that that was not the case. So drop that and speak about the slaves I have asked you about, instead.
So you believe it was moral for god to tell the Israelites to invade other culture's towns and kill everyone, including children and babies and take the virgin girls as slaves?
You believe it was moral to buy slaves from the nations around them? You believe it was moral for god to tell the Israelites that it was okay to beat a slave as long as they didn't die for a couple of days?
You are dodging and weaving to avoid the basic question. IS IT MORAL TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AS PERSONAL PROPERTY?
Apparently I am more moral than your god or you when it comes to slavery.I DO believe it is immoral and I DO believe it would be an immoral god that would sanction slavery. I believe it is Immoral to excuse such behavior in others as well.
. You yourself have already admitted in your last post that slavery is an immoral thing. You admit that your god legislated for this moral thing to occur. How is this so hard for you to understand after admitting these are both true?
Someone who does an immoral thing is immoral. Your god clearly did an immoral thing by promoting slavery. That makes your god immoral in that regard. There is NO CONTEXT in which slavery is moral. You can argue that it was expedient for this or that reason, but you cannot argue that it was moral to own slaves without becoming immoral yourself in the process.

I have no idea how to reach someone who is being so intellectually dishonest. The cognitive dissonance must be horrific.



There is no grey here....something cannot be kind of moral or kind of immoral. What an absurd argument!!! Morality is a binary question. Something either is moral or it is not.

You can bash him about if you choose, but he makes a good point... It was the reality of the times.. You should be able to understand that.

PS.. It wasn't just "your god".. it was in China, Khazaria, Arabia, Palestine and the Levant etc. Even the Vikings were slave traders.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
ANCIENT SLAVERY AND MODERN IDEOLOGY M. I. FINLEY

ANCIENT SLAVERY AND MODERN IDEOLOGY The first is from Arnold Heeren, the extremely influential Gottingen philosopher and historian, writing at the very beginning of the nineteenth century; , , everything that moderns have said about and against slavery may also be applied to the Greeks. . . .[But one should not try to deny th^ truth that, without the instrument ofslavery, the culture ofthe ruling class in Greece could in no way have become what it diSLl fruits which the latter bore have a value for the whole^ civilized mankind, then it may at least be allowed to express doubt ^hether it was igught at too hizh a price in the introduction ofslavery'l (my italics).® —------ ■—' The contrasting quotation is from Engels’ Anti-Duhring: ‘It was slavery that first made possible the division of labour and agriculture and industry on a considerable scale. . . . Withthout slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science; without slavery, no Roman empire. Without Hellenism and the _Roman empire as the base, also no modern Europe... It costs little to inveigh against slavery and the like in general terms, and to pour high moral wrath on such infamies. . . . But that tells us not one word as to how those institutions arose, why they existed, and what role they have played in history.’*

The whole book is scanned and available.
..........................................................................
Book: Beyond Civilization: Humanity's Next Great Adventure. Daniel Quinn.

6. Agricultural food production is a core cause of our population explosion and the ecological ruination of the planet. Civilization began not with the invention of gardening but with the ownership of stored food. Once food surpluses are stored, they must be guarded by their owners and policing forces. This brings into being a hierarchical order. On the top are the owners and their hired guards. Below are the producers who must work not only for their own living but to support the food storage system and its owners and protectors. This basic structure may seem innocent and practical at first glance, for it provides a solution for leveling out the times of plenty with the times of famine. But not all the consequences of this new structure are beneficial. The owners, who might wish everyone to think of them as useful servants of the social whole, actually become persons of privilege and of excesses that seem to have no limits. Meanwhile the actual producers of this seemingly unlimited wealth are turned into prisoners of a system that requires of them more and more work and less and less participation in deciding what work is worth doing. In addition, these workers become, for the owners, a part of their wealth. It is to the owners’ advantage for there to be more workers.

Civilization grows by having more food to feed more workers who produce more food to feed more workers who produce more food to feed more workers who produce more food to feed more workers. . . . This is the core dynamic beneath the population explosion. Tribal society did not produce more food than they could eat nor an exponentially expanding population of eaters.
...................................................................
THE HISTORY OF SLAVERYhttps://restavekfreedom.org/2018/09/11/the-history-of-slavery/
The Life of a Slave in Ancient Times
Slavery in ancient times typically came about as a result of debt, birth into a slave family, child abandonment, war, or as a punishment for crime. At the outset, the slave trade wasn’t very popular and was certainly not a booming global business. Rather, slavers would often seek out a buyer who could use the specific skills of a slave, matching supply with demand on a local and personal level. According to historical texts, the lives of slaves in ancient times were typically better than that of peasants in the same era, as they had regular care, food, shelter and clothing. Slaves rarely attempted to run away unless their masters were atypically cruel.
..........................................................................
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Slavery wasn't necessary in all ancient civilizations. The Persian empire under Cyrus the great, for example.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Slavery wasn't necessary in all ancient civilizations. The Persian empire under Cyrus the great, for example.
Hi
Fair enough. That was a good catch. Cyrus is such an interesting guy. His release of the slaves though was a more cynical move than it seems at first glance.
But yes the Persians particular form of empire was one of the less slavey empires of the ancient world. They did regress as time went on and "client kings" were free to be as slavey as they wanted. The lack of central control allowed a lot of the dirty work to stick to the "barbarian Kings" who answered to the king of kings.

Peace
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Slavery wasn't necessary in all ancient civilizations. The Persian empire under Cyrus the great, for example.
Hi

Cyrus was very killy though. I love the Tomyris story where she says to him.....
But if you will not, then I swear to you by the sun, lord of the Massagetae, that I shall
give even you who can never get enough of it your fill of blood (1.212.3)

Peace
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Slavery wasn't necessary in all ancient civilizations. The Persian empire under Cyrus the great, for example.

  1. Slavery in Iran - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Iran
    In general, mass slavery as a whole has never been practiced by Persians, and in many cases the situation and lives of semi-slaves (prisoners of war) were, in fact, better than those of the commoner. [1]

  2. Slavery in Persia?
    (no title)slavery-in-persia
    Persia
    has SLAVERY (Having “Bardeh”, in persian) through out the history, till 120 years ago, when a law was passed against it (for several centuries before that slavery was not completely legal but still practiced). Yet it seems to be not an straight forward topic that all historians agree upon.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
You can bash him about if you choose, but he makes a good point... It was the reality of the times.. You should be able to understand that.

PS.. It wasn't just "your god".. it was in China, Khazaria, Arabia, Palestine and the Levant etc. Even the Vikings were slave traders.

I am not questioning whether is was the reality of the times. I am questioning whether is was moral to own another human being. Murder was a reality of the times (and still is). does that mean murder is moral?
We are discussing morality, not normality.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Hi
I have said that the scholary consensus is that Slavery was NECESSARY to human civilizational development. You REFUSE to address that from the start.
...............................................
All of your excuses for immoral behavior listed above have other solutions. We have them today.
Today,s solutions do not work in the Bronze age world... it is as simple as that.
Your only answer you have to the Problem of Bronze age warfare is to let the captives go. That is NOT A WORKABLE ANSWER.
Your answer to destitution is a welfare state in a world where that was IMPOSSIBLE.
You had no answer to debt slavery.
You had no comment on how to organize mass labour

You gave NO solutions.
..............................................................
IS IT MORAL TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AS PERSONAL PROPERTY?
YES. It was the lessor of TWO evils. Many chose it rather than death. Unless you believe that all humanity was immoral before Lincoln. I actually cut them some slack as i realize how hard survival was in the ancient world.
If you and another person came to a mutual agreement where is the moral dilemma in that?
If you agree to fight and the winner owns the loser where is the moral dilemma in that?
If you take on a debt knowing that your body is your collateral where is the moral dilemma in that?
If you are guaranteed a plot of land in return for service and you agree where is the moral dilemma in that?
......................................................

So you believe it was moral for god to tell the Israelites to invade other culture's towns and kill everyone, including children and babies and take the virgin girls as slaves?
YES. These were the rules of engagement that ALL parties agreed upon.
What can be more moral than that?

And they only invaded ONE culture over a very short period. All the other violence was defensive. Yet you WILL NOT acknowledge that fact.
......................................................................

You believe it was moral to buy slaves from the nations around them?
A reference please.
...........................................................
Apparently I am more moral than your god or you when it comes to slavery.
You are more moral than all our ancestors it seems... that's a big claim.
They did not see it the same way. Nor do i. I have more faith in people than you do it seems.
..............................................................

God couldn't figure out how to do these things? How weak.
I TOLD YOU this is always where the discussion regresses to. Even after mentioning the GARDEN and the FRUIT and what we AGREED was the outcome of the story. How can you come out with the CRAP that your God is to weak.From the casting out from Eden YOU KNOW that HUMAN DECISIONS are how we get to slavery, warfare and the like. I thought we AGREED that God did NOT step into human affairs to shield them from the consequences of their decisions.
Your LOGICAL FALLACY is thinking that the God of the Bible is allowed to dictate universal human conduct within the fallen world. NOPE. AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT.
.........................................................

There is no grey here....something cannot be kind of moral or kind of immoral.
There is no grey in the consideration of human bondage over the course of human history and i am the one being intellectually dishonest. Ok.

Peace.

You keep shifting the discussion to what was or is "normal" or was "common". that is not the object we are discussing. We are discussing morality. The frequency that something occurs is not what makes it moral.
But I see from your post above that you indeed think that slavery is moral in certain circumstances. We differ in that belief. I do not believe that it is moral to own another human as personal property and be able to beat them if I wish is ever moral, no matter how "normal" it might seem.
I see Christians regularly sacrificing their own morality to argue for the existence of slavery all the time, an it is so sad.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
You keep shifting the discussion to what was or is "normal" or was "common". that is not the object we are discussing. We are discussing morality. The frequency that something occurs is not what makes it moral.
But I see from your post above that you indeed think that slavery is moral in certain circumstances. We differ in that belief. I do not believe that it is moral to own another human as personal property and be able to beat them if I wish is ever moral, no matter how "normal" it might seem.
I see Christians regularly sacrificing their own morality to argue for the existence of slavery all the time, an it is so sad.
Hi

So let all war prisoners go free along with an ancient multi national welfare state is your definitive position as to the what the ancient Bronze age polities should have done to alleviate ,slavery, slaughter and famine. Good Luck With That.
.............................................................
You know from our Eden discussion that God is not allowed to enforce his will on mankind so he CAN NOT do what you say that he must do and ban the human practice of slavery, you are definetly an intellectual coward for not addressing that basic fact. You know that once you do your demand that GOD should have banned slavery for all mankind is an untenable position to hold and the rest of your argument has no foundation.
...........................................................
So it seems that you now agree that slavery was normal. I wonder why you did not say this to me I am not questioning whether it was the reality of the times.
That admission 3 posts ago would have saved some time.
....................................................................................
Again a comment to Soda which i wish you had made to me.....
Murder was a reality of the times (and still is). does that mean murder is moral?
I notice you use the word murder here that is dishonest or at least tricky. Of course MURDER is immoral.
Is Killing another human being ALWAYS Immoral ?
Was the Hiroshima Bomb moral or immoral in your opinion?
Again a question that WILL NOT BE ANSWERED because the issue is GREY and you have locked any admission of anything but absolute divine morality out of the picture.
...............................................................

I do not believe that it is moral to own another human as personal property
Do you think this would be your belief if you had been born in 1400 bce?
To sit there and apply 20th century morality back onto the ancient is foolish in the extreme
..............................................................

It seems that we now come to what morality really is. You DID NOT COMMENT on any of this.....


1. If you and another person came to a mutual agreement where is the moral dilemma in that?

2. If you both agree to fight and the winner owns the loser where is the moral dilemma in that?

3. If you take on a debt knowing that your body is your collateral where is the moral dilemma in that?

To continue you MUST explain to me why a mutually agreed upon decision somehow becomes immoral. Below is the definition of morality........

  • a particular system of values and principles of conduct.

  • the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
Now please stop just repeating yourself saying that it is immoral in your opinion and PLEASE explain to me how any of the 3 options above are in any way immoral if viewed by the actual definition of the word
.............................................................

Peace



 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
You keep shifting the discussion to what was or is "normal" or was "common". that is not the object we are discussing. We are discussing morality. The frequency that something occurs is not what makes it moral.
But I see from your post above that you indeed think that slavery is moral in certain circumstances. We differ in that belief. I do not believe that it is moral to own another human as personal property and be able to beat them if I wish is ever moral, no matter how "normal" it might seem.
I see Christians regularly sacrificing their own morality to argue for the existence of slavery all the time, an it is so sad.
Hi

For someone who said that they were an atheist with no particular axe to grind you sure spend a lot of time sharpening the axe.
I see Christians regularly sacrificing their own morality to argue for the existence of slavery all the time, an it is so sad
That is an incredibly twisted way to put it and shows a real nastiness lurking underneath this urbane front you put on. I have been arguing FOR the existence of slavery have i .... dead set that makes me sssooooooooo angry.

You commented earlier about physically defending me, which shows that you claim some militaryness in your past, a decision i see as immoral to its very core but i did not throw it at you in an attempt to muddy the discussion yet you continually throw these not so subtle and not so clever barbs at me. I thought that for once a clear discussion of a difficult subject could have been had.

On further thought please do not respond to this or the previous post i am so disgusted with you that i will not be able to keep this civil.
I hope your atheistic belief delivers to you everything you hope for.

Goodbye.

 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Hi

For someone who said that they were an atheist with no particular axe to grind you sure spend a lot of time sharpening the axe.
I see Christians regularly sacrificing their own morality to argue for the existence of slavery all the time, an it is so sad
That is an incredibly twisted way to put it and shows a real nastiness lurking underneath this urbane front you put on. I have been arguing FOR the existence of slavery have i .... dead set that makes me sssooooooooo angry.

You commented earlier about physically defending me, which shows that you claim some militaryness in your past, a decision i see as immoral to its very core but i did not throw it at you in an attempt to muddy the discussion yet you continually throw these not so subtle and not so clever barbs at me. I thought that for once a clear discussion of a difficult subject could have been had.

On further thought please do not respond to this or the previous post i am so disgusted with you that i will not be able to keep this civil.
I hope your atheistic belief delivers to you everything you hope for.

Goodbye.
People have a right to respond to your posts even if you don't like their replies. You are none too polite either.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Hi

For someone who said that they were an atheist with no particular axe to grind you sure spend a lot of time sharpening the axe.
I see Christians regularly sacrificing their own morality to argue for the existence of slavery all the time, an it is so sad
That is an incredibly twisted way to put it and shows a real nastiness lurking underneath this urbane front you put on. I have been arguing FOR the existence of slavery have i .... dead set that makes me sssooooooooo angry.

You commented earlier about physically defending me, which shows that you claim some militaryness in your past, a decision i see as immoral to its very core but i did not throw it at you in an attempt to muddy the discussion yet you continually throw these not so subtle and not so clever barbs at me. I thought that for once a clear discussion of a difficult subject could have been had.

On further thought please do not respond to this or the previous post i am so disgusted with you that i will not be able to keep this civil.
I hope your atheistic belief delivers to you everything you hope for.

Goodbye.

"For someone who said that they were an atheist with no particular axe to grind you sure spend a lot of time sharpening the axe."

That's a fair statement in regard to this particular conversation. I was kinda not wanting to go down the morality rabbit hole, but you said that you had a well founded knowledge of the subject, so off we went. LOL
But the conversation has really reached a conclusion of sorts. My contention was that slavery is immoral, and you have stated that you also believe slavery is immoral (you used the word "bad"). But then you seemed to backtrack and say that it is only immoral sometimes. my contention is that slavery is always immoral, so the real difference is that you espouse situational morality and I don't. Most Christians espouse objective morality, so I find your position refreshingly different even if I disagree with it.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Are we living people going to die in the flesh someday because of the original sins of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden? Is that forbidden fruit the death curse of us all?
I still can't get over the fact that the first thing A&E start doing is making up sins that don't exist, like nudity.

God supposedly guaranteed that mankind would die upon eating the forbidden fruit but does that infer that God guaranteed immortality to mankind for otherwise keeping that original commandment?
No. It's like saying your hand will get burned if you touch the stove. The problem is that the stove's off and God doesn't want you to eat the cookies He's hiding on the stove.

Humans probably would have lived forever without suffering the damage of sin had we listened to God, but the wrong choice was made. Thankfully, death is the result or the awful consequences of sin would go on forever. Instead, God offers a way out and an eternity free from sin and heartache.
Or God could be an adult and clock in occasionally to ensure compliance. I hate watching those TV shows where some business owner is whining to the host about how the business is going down the drain but it's almost always the fact they are incompetent or greedy that makes it that way.

For all intents and purposes him and Eve are but babes.

and if you enter Heaven, it will be forever
God brags that you should fear Him because He can kill souls. If He can, then you're not even safe in heaven.

I don't see him issuing his commandment to anyone else, so I don't see an implication of any kind.
He didn't even tell Eve. She was created AFTER God made the rule.

God also did not say that people die anyway. Therefore, we could assume people would have lived eternally. Also, if not, there would not have been any reason to say the fruit leads to death.
But A) they didn't die until they were centuries old, B) the Tree of Life specifically grants immortality, and C) you can totally not die today but still die tomorrow. Not dying today doesn't prove you are immortal.

That they didn't know good and evil was immaterial. They just needed to obey the command.
Anyone who has ever learned that their parents gave a rule due to selfishness understands why this is bad parenting.

God insinuates it's poisonous (how would Adam know or care?) but really just doesn't want to share divine powers. He opened the situation with dishonesty and that's why we can't have nice things.

and provided for their redemption.
Yes, I'm sure it was comforting to know you'll burn in hell but sometime centuries from now God will totally give you a bucket of water.

God is righteous in all He does.
Abuse victims say this.

As I have said before, if He saves 3,000, He is righteous in doing so. If He slays 3,000, He is righteous in doing so.
Will you feel that way if He says you're on the naughty-list?

But then again, certain avatars make me think that one values overseer-type "morality".

It was important that there was no reason to obey the command other then simple obedience.
There SHOULD be a logical reason. "Don't cross the street without looking both ways or some jerk will run you over." Not "don't eat some magic fruit because I'll tell you it'll kill you but it won't because I'm a selfish jerk who is insecure about my position in life."

Slavery is the natural condition of man. Thus you will find institutions of slavery among men. It is supported in the Bible.
Ah, so my impression of a snowflake who feels brown people threaten his very existence because a lack of melanin is all he's good for is pretty on the nose. Good bye.

I do not understand why you think it is natural for a man to be enslaved by another human........please explain
Notice that all the pro-slavery people never volunteer.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Anyone who has ever learned that their parents gave a rule due to selfishness understands why this is bad parenting.

God insinuates it's poisonous (how would Adam know or care?) but really just doesn't want to share divine powers. He opened the situation with dishonesty and that's why we can't have nice things.


Yes, I'm sure it was comforting to know you'll burn in hell but sometime centuries from now God will totally give you a bucket of water.


Abuse victims say this.


Will you feel that way if He says you're on the naughty-list?

But then again, certain avatars make me think that one values overseer-type "morality".


There SHOULD be a logical reason. "Don't cross the street without looking both ways or some jerk will run you over." Not "don't eat some magic fruit because I'll tell you it'll kill you but it won't because I'm a selfish jerk who is insecure about my position in life."


Ah, so my impression of a snowflake who feels brown people threaten his very existence because a lack of melanin is all he's good for is pretty on the nose. Good by.

Again, it doesn't matter what Adam knows. He just needs to obey the commandment. He knew that.

Actually, no water forthcoming.

Abuse victims, and those who are not abuse victims, say that. So?

He won't say that. Really? What type of avatars might that be?

No, that was the whole point of the command. It was simply to obey God.

Your 'impression' is not worth much to me.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Top