Scientific evidence and Bible prophecies.

Brian2 · Jul 20, 2022

Policy said:
You were and are arguing that slavery was moral in their society while being immoral in ours. That.is quite literally relative morality..

The kidnapping of people for slavery is wrong in Biblical morals all the way through.

Policy said:
This is just an argument that slavery had utility. You can argue for the utility of anything from slavery to cannibalism to rape culture to fascism to kleptocracies. All of these have been part of the social structure of thriving societies. Unless you are claiming that a social structure or institution is moral because it has utility, that link is irrelevant.

Slavery is immoral.

God could have chosen to encode laws for a thriving non slave society, but he chose not to.

Therefore, God is immoral

.

It is the utility of slavery which makes it moral. It was part of the social security system of the day, without the need for an extended bureaucratic structure.
Actually if you look at the OT laws, many of them are concerned with the welfare of the poor and needy.

Brian2 · Jul 20, 2022

SkepticThinker said:
They are chattel slaves. They are described exactly as chattel slaves.

Which is exactly what the people in the Bible were advised to do. So I'm glad you agree that the slavery described in the Bible is immoral.

Yes, the Jewish slaves were treated slightly better than the non-Jewish ones. How moral!

All one needs to know how bad and immoral slavery is in the Bible is to read the words God supposedly told his people about how to treat human beings as property.

So this is where we're at. The all-knowing, all-seeing, loving creator of the universe, who took the time to declare 600+ commandments to his people, outlawing homosexuality, and shellfish and clothing of mixed fabrics just couldn't be bothered to throw in a commandment against owning human beings as property because well, it was necessary at the time or something. So this God's morality does change in different times and different contexts. Which is where we started - with you telling me that it doesn't.

At the time slavery was beneficial as a part of the social security system. iow it was allowed amongst the Jews because it was a law of love that helped the poor and did so with justice. Looking at the other laws shows us that every debt was to be forgiven at jubilee and slavery was not forever.
God does not tell the Jews to go and steal people from other nations to make them into slaves. They were allowed to buy slaves from other nations however just as the aliens in Israel could also join in and sell slaves to the Jews in Israel as part of the system.
When it came to the aliens in slavery the laws were different but those slaves were also given some protection under the law because they were seen as people and not just as property.
The aliens were never seen as part of Israel and were not given the same rights as fellow Israelis.
As I said, at that time slavery was part of the social security system and so was covered by God's law of love. Just because slavery was different in other places and other times, such as here and now, does not mean that it would be immoral now if set up in a similar way and for similar purpose as in Ancient Israel.

Brian2 · Jul 20, 2022

SkepticThinker said:
I have a question that should clear this up ...

Do you think poor and needy people living today would be best served by "signing up" for slavery?

This society is completely different to the ancient society but something could probably be worked out for the benefit of the needy and for society also and which probably would be better for everyone than just giving money to the poor.

ppp · Jul 20, 2022

Brian2 said:
The kidnapping of people for slavery is wrong in Biblical morals all the way through.

Both false and irrelevant. For you are still arguing for relative morality.

Brian2 said:
It is the utility of slavery which makes it moral.

Utility does not make an action moral. And the fact that your religion has poisoned your mind so deeply as to make you believe that to be true is one of the reasons I oppose religion.

Subduction Zone · Jul 21, 2022

Brian2 said:
At the time slavery was beneficial as a part of the social security system. iow it was allowed amongst the Jews because it was a law of love that helped the poor and did so with justice. Looking at the other laws shows us that every debt was to be forgiven at jubilee and slavery was not forever.
God does not tell the Jews to go and steal people from other nations to make them into slaves. They were allowed to buy slaves from other nations however just as the aliens in Israel could also join in and sell slaves to the Jews in Israel as part of the system.
When it came to the aliens in slavery the laws were different but those slaves were also given some protection under the law because they were seen as people and not just as property.
The aliens were never seen as part of Israel and were not given the same rights as fellow Israelis.
As I said, at that time slavery was part of the social security system and so was covered by God's law of love. Just because slavery was different in other places and other times, such as here and now, does not mean that it would be immoral now if set up in a similar way and for similar purpose as in Ancient Israel.

So it was okay as long as someone else did the kidnapping. And you appear to be ignoring how the ancient Hebrews supposedly dealt with the people that they defeated. Young girls at the very least were turned into virtual sex slaves.

If you read it without an artificial bias it is rather clear that God is not against the enslavement of non-Hebrews. That was who he generally did not want enslaved, ut even for them he told his own people how they could trick their fellow Hebrew into being a slave for the rest of his life. And of course the man's children would be chattel slaves as well.

Brian2 · Jul 21, 2022

Policy said:
Both false and irrelevant. For you are still arguing for relative morality.

Utility does not make an action moral. And the fact that your religion has poisoned your mind so deeply as to make you believe that to be true is one of the reasons I oppose religion.

1Tim 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

How am I arguing relative morality if I think an appropriate system could be set up these days along the lines of Ancient Israel. But it would be decried by people who are opposed to it for their particular reasons.
If the system in the OT had good results for those in servitude and the slave owners and was actually a loving solution to poverty and debts then why is it seen as immoral? I would guess that people who oppose it actually oppose the system where slaves had no rights and were forcibly kidnapped for slavery.
In Israel the servitude was a contractual thing.
Where this may not have been the case is if a man sold his daughter. This would be just like an arranged marriage and had benefits in those days that it may not have so much these days. And of course it is frowned upon in these times, especially where it is abused.
I imagine those who bought slaves from aliens in their land or from other nations were not buying kidnapped people.
It is sad that people can be blinded to the benefits and good in a system just because of modern attitudes.

Subduction Zone · Jul 21, 2022

Brian2 said:
1Tim 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

How am I arguing relative morality if I think an appropriate system could be set up these days along the lines of Ancient Israel. But it would be decried by people who are opposed to it for their particular reasons.
If the system in the OT had good results for those in servitude and the slave owners and was actually a loving solution to poverty and debts then why is it seen as immoral? I would guess that people who oppose it actually oppose the system where slaves had no rights and were forcibly kidnapped for slavery.
In Israel the servitude was a contractual thing.
Where this may not have been the case is if a man sold his daughter. This would be just like an arranged marriage and had benefits in those days that it may not have so much these days. And of course it is frowned upon in these times, especially where it is abused.
I imagine those who bought slaves from aliens in their land or from other nations were not buying kidnapped people.
It is sad that people can be blinded to the benefits and good in a system just because of modern attitudes.

And yet the Bible says it is OK to buy slaves from these people. The Bible is not known for being consistent. Why are you surprised when it contradicts itself?

Brian2 · Jul 21, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
So it was okay as long as someone else did the kidnapping. And you appear to be ignoring how the ancient Hebrews supposedly dealt with the people that they defeated. Young girls at the very least were turned into virtual sex slaves.

If you read it without an artificial bias it is rather clear that God is not against the enslavement of non-Hebrews. That was who he generally did not want enslaved, ut even for them he told his own people how they could trick their fellow Hebrew into being a slave for the rest of his life. And of course the man's children would be chattel slaves as well.

The aliens in Israel were protected by the law and treated as people. As slaves they were also given protection in the law. Ex 21:16 has the death penalty for those who kidnapped people for slavery or who had those slaves in their possession, so I would say that the slaves in Israel should not have been kidnapped under the law. (what happened and what the law said are not always going to line up of course).
Canaan was given by God to the Hebrews and the Canaanites were to be killed or enslaved and that was for the good of the Israelites. Intermarrying etc with the Canaanites was part of the problem that eventually saw Israel corrupted and exiled.
Girls were sometimes given in marriage and this was regulated by law and not just rape and being a sex slave.
The option of permanent servitude for Hebrews was not there as a way to trick their fellow Hebrews into permanent slavery.
If a man sold his Hebrew children that would not be as chattel slaves. The girls would be in an arranged marriage arrangement and there are laws to protect them. I don't know if boys were sold like that but they would not be sold into permanent slavery. That was illegal unless agreed by the slave that he wanted to remain a slave with his master.
Interestingly if Hebrew slaves did not like their master they could leave and become slaves somewhere else.
From this site:
Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

Another important law that should inform our understanding of what was legal in ancient Israel is Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.” According to the law of Moses, it was actually illegal to return a fugitive slave.[2] In fact, this passage commands his fellow Israelites to allow him to dwell wherever he pleases. Effectively, Israelite slaves could break their service contracts simply by leaving. Slavery in Israelite law was entered into voluntarily and could be ended voluntarily. This stands in stark contrast to other ancient Near Eastern law codes of the day, such as the Law of Hammurabi (ca. 1792–1750 BC), which gives a drastically different perspective on runaway slaves:

If a man should harbor a fugitive slave or slave woman of either the palace or of a commoner in his house and not bring him out at the herald’s public proclamation, that householder shall be killed.

Brian2 · Jul 21, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
And yet the Bible says it is OK to buy slaves from these people. The Bible is not known for being consistent. Why are you surprised when it contradicts itself?

If a slave is bought from these people presumably (for consistency) the slave would not be a kidnapped slave.

ppp · Jul 21, 2022

@Brian2 I have no interest in arguments that depend on subreption. Do better.

SkepticThinker · Jul 21, 2022

Brian2 said:
At the time slavery was beneficial as a part of the social security system. iow it was allowed amongst the Jews because it was a law of love that helped the poor and did so with justice. Looking at the other laws shows us that every debt was to be forgiven at jubilee and slavery was not forever.
God does not tell the Jews to go and steal people from other nations to make them into slaves. They were allowed to buy slaves from other nations however just as the aliens in Israel could also join in and sell slaves to the Jews in Israel as part of the system.
When it came to the aliens in slavery the laws were different but those slaves were also given some protection under the law because they were seen as people and not just as property.
The aliens were never seen as part of Israel and were not given the same rights as fellow Israelis.
As I said, at that time slavery was part of the social security system and so was covered by God's law of love. Just because slavery was different in other places and other times, such as here and now, does not mean that it would be immoral now if set up in a similar way and for similar purpose as in Ancient Israel.

This is just apologetics stuff, meant to whitewash the chattel slavery that God endorses in the Bible.

You are arguing for moral relativity while at the same time claiming that morality is objective and absolute. In essence, you are arguing against yourself. So there isn't much more I need to say, since you've done my job for me. I mean, seriously, you are defending slavery as a moral practice. :shrug:

SkepticThinker · Jul 21, 2022

Brian2 said:
This society is completely different to the ancient society but something could probably be worked out for the benefit of the needy and for society also and which probably would be better for everyone than just giving money to the poor.

Good grief.

You've lost your moral compass, man.

gnostic · Aug 6, 2022

Brian2 said:
Even the slaves bought from the surrounding nations and foreigners in the land of Israel were not chattel slaves and had rights under the law.

It’s still slavery.

You’re simply whitewashing immoral practices, trying to justify the Bible.

Law or no law, it’s still slavery.

Tell me, brian2. You do find what Herod ordered the massacre of all Bethlehem boys 2 years old and younger to be barbaric, don’t you?

If you do, then wouldn’t say God ordering King Saul the genocide of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15), including children and infants to be even more barbaric? Or will you whitewash or make excuses that god’s command as justified?

Brian2 · Aug 9, 2022

gnostic said:
It’s still slavery.

You’re simply whitewashing immoral practices, trying to justify the Bible.

Law or no law, it’s still slavery.

Tell me, brian2. You do find what Herod ordered the massacre of all Bethlehem boys 2 years old and younger to be barbaric, don’t you?

If you do, then wouldn’t say God ordering King Saul the genocide of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15), including children and infants to be even more barbaric? Or will you whitewash or make excuses that god’s command as justified?

The Lord's ordering Saul to destroy the Amalekites was because Amalek had ambushed Israel when Israel was on it's journey to the promised land in the days of Moses. (Ex 17:8-16) God promised then that He would judge the Amalekites for this.
So you are comparing the judgement of God on a nation for their treachery with the actions of a man against God and for his own glory and the continuation of his kingship.
You are comparing a war against the enemy of Israel which kept attacking Israel and destroying crops etc with the sending of troops to slaughter babies.

ppp · Aug 9, 2022

Brian2 said:
The Lord's ordering Saul to destroy the Amalekites was because Amalek had ambushed Israel when Israel was on it's journey to the promised land in the days of Moses. (Ex 17:8-16) God promised then that He would judge the Amalekites for this.
So you are comparing the judgement of God on a nation for their treachery with the actions of a man against God and for his own glory and the continuation of his kingship.
You are comparing a war against the enemy of Israel which kept attacking Israel and destroying crops etc with the sending of troops to slaughter babies.

Are you under the impression that something you just said makes your god sending troops to slaughter kids anything but immoral? It doesn't. Telling us what their parents supposedly did is not an excuse.

gnostic · Aug 9, 2022

Brian2 said:
The Lord's ordering Saul to destroy the Amalekites was because Amalek had ambushed Israel when Israel was on it's journey to the promised land in the days of Moses.

One.

That was generations ago - Moses' time.

To attack the Amalekites for something that supposedly happened several hundreds years before Saul's time.

Israel wasn't at war with the Amalekites at that time. This time, Israel was the attacker, and God ordering not only the war, but to kill EVERY woman, child and even babies were not to be spared.

That's an atrocity.

Two.

Brian2 said:
So you are comparing the judgement of God on a nation for their treachery with the actions of a man against God and for his own glory and the continuation of his kingship.

So it is okay for God giving order for the massacre of children and even babies?

How is that any better than what happen in the Herod and Bethlehem story?

Brian2 said:
You are comparing a war against the enemy of Israel which kept attacking Israel and destroying crops etc with the sending of troops to slaughter babies.

I don't care if it is god or king ordering killing of children and infants. It is bad either way.

That such order came from God, makes it a lot worse. It make God a baby killer.

gnostic · Aug 9, 2022

btw, brian

I don't think you are seeing the big picture in the story of genocide of the Amalekites.

In Genesis, God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to him, but in the end, Abraham was ready to kill Isaac when God intervene, Isaac was spared, and a ram was substituted as the sacrifice. God awarded Abraham's complete faith, loyalty and obedience.

The real story is about in 1 Samuel is the rise of David.

God ordered Saul (through Samuel) to exterminate everyone including babies. For David to rise, Saul must fall.

So basically God was testing Saul's obedience, when he ordered the genocide, where no one was to be spared.

Saul failed the test, because he spared the Amalekite king.

Saul was punished for sparing one person (king), but not for ordering the slaughter of men, women, children and babies.

Clearly God don't care for children or babies and have no qualms ordering people ordering death of innocents.

God wanted absolute loyalty, even if it meant death of every Amalekite child and every baby.

How can man be moral, when God himself isn't moral?

Brian2 · Aug 10, 2022

Policy said:
Are you under the impression that something you just said makes your god sending troops to slaughter kids anything but immoral? It doesn't. Telling us what their parents supposedly did is not an excuse.

I'm under the impression that you are not open to trying to see things from God's pov in that situation as King and protector of Israel, and are not open to seeing God as creator and judge of His creation.

Brian2 · Aug 10, 2022

gnostic said:
btw, brian

I don't think you are seeing the big picture in the story of genocide of the Amalekites.

In Genesis, God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to him, but in the end, Abraham was ready to kill Isaac when God intervene, Isaac was spared, and a ram was substituted as the sacrifice. God awarded Abraham's complete faith, loyalty and obedience.

The real story is about in 1 Samuel is the rise of David.

God ordered Saul (through Samuel) to exterminate everyone including babies. For David to rise, Saul must fall.

So basically God was testing Saul's obedience, when he ordered the genocide, where no one was to be spared.

Saul failed the test, because he spared the Amalekite king.

Saul was punished for sparing one person (king), but not for ordering the slaughter of men, women, children and babies.

Clearly God don't care for children or babies and have no qualms ordering people ordering death of innocents.

God wanted absolute loyalty, even if it meant death of every Amalekite child and every baby.

How can man be moral, when God himself isn't moral?

You do not see God as creator and judge of the earth. You see God as just another person. That is the same as seeing a judge in a court as immoral because he sentences someone to a term in jail or the death sentence.

gnostic · Aug 10, 2022

Brian2 said:
You do not see God as creator and judge of the earth. You see God as just another person. That is the same as seeing a judge in a court as immoral because he sentences someone to a term in jail or the death sentence.

Ordering death sentence for thousands of children and hundreds of babies is being a "just" judge?

You still believe there are nothing wrong with genocide being ordered by God, where is completely ok to murder children and babies.

That's turning a blind eye to immoral horrific atrocity.

Scientific evidence and Bible prophecies.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

The Lost One