Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[tas8831]

No. The problem is that you ALREADY now that morality can be relative.

So you admit that Jehovah knows not of absolute morality. Got it.

 

[tas8831]

How so?

What an amazing 'argument' they have, no?

Do as God says, not as He does = absolute morality.

 

[viole]

Hi
Well, the problem here is that you Christians do not agree. So, my replies to Billiard might not be relevant to you.
No. The problem is that you ALREADY now that morality can be relative.
So why pose the questions the exact way that you did when we first started.
..........................................................
You say morality is relative, other Christians say it is absolute and unchanging.
Wow that is such a twist of what i said. Gods absolute morality was excercised in a way that accommodates his dealing with imperfect creatures. It is relative to the situation, as true morality should be.
........................................................
I am not referring to any of the internal differences in christendom... a pox on all their houses. You can bang on about them all you want. It is your dishonesty in including stuff you already know is hyperbolic declaration, cultural influence and tribal normative behaviour in your accusations that i find telling on the true motivation of your "slash the babies" rhetoric.

If you disagreed with any of the previous explanations of cultural and societal makeup of the protagonists you failed to mention it.

If you disagreed with the explanation of the intricacies of patriarchal tribal confederations you failed to mention it.

If you disagreed that because of the way the drama unfolded in Eden the Biblical God is not able to make universal proclamations binding on all mankind you failed to mention it.

If you disagreed that the "love thy Neighbour" principle was over a 1000 years after the events that we are discussing you failed to mention it.

If you disagree that slavery or slaughter was the mutually agreed upon cultural zeitgeist you failed to mention it.
.............................................
So you seem to indicate that you want me to provide facts that contradict what your God said. Are you sure?

I would be interested in some facts or some reasoning or something. I laid out copious facts about the times and the peoples and the lead up to the events and you commented on NOTHING.
I suspect that the facts that you are threatening Billards ball with are your devastating "What would Jesus do?" and "Love thy Neighbour" gems. You should not even bother with such tripe but i'm sure you will, we'll see.
..................................................
What you should answer is why the accepted common practice of ALL the peoples of those times is somehow NOW immoral. Killing babies in 1300 bce is not the same as killing them in 2019 and your shrill emotive outbursts only cause you to judge the situation from an unapplicable perspective. It may feel good but it is in no way an attempt to understand anything.
.....................................
I thank you for the conversation, i'll let you regurgitate your one trick pony of an argument onto the next hapless victim. I wish you the best and hope your atheism delivers everything that it promises.
Peace

What do you mean with imperfect creatures? My Christian friend told me that Adam and Eve were created perfect.

Or was God tired? I knew that reusing Gorillas design for the pinnacle of His creation might be a sign of exhaustion.

If He needed a rest soon after, it might be that quality control was not so optimal. I also do a lot of mistakes when I work late.

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

Of course, Bible slavery isn’t American slavery with beatings and rapes. It is an economic exchange for food and shelter.

I am amazed that bible experts are so ignorant of their Holy Book - or is it that you see no problem misconstruing/misreporting/misrepresenting it for argument purposes?

Let's see if bible slavery is really about an 'economic food and shelter':

EXODUS 21
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


Exodus 21
20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.


1 Peter 2
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.


Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

I must have missed it - maybe ya'll 'SuperChristians' can explain to me what I am missing - nothing here about slavery being a mere "economic exchange for food and shelter".

Buying foreign people to keep as your possessions, that you can then give to your kids as THEIR possessions - does not sound at all like a mere economic tit-for-tat.

But I forgot - I'm the one with "double standards" because I eat eggs or some such nonsense.

 

[tas8831]

Bible slavery isn’t American slavery

Sure it is - southern confederate slave states used Scripture to justify what they did- just one example:

Texas
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

...She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?...
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.​

with beatings and rapes. It is an economic exchange for food and shelter.

Let's see if bible slavery is really about an 'economic food and shelter':

EXODUS 21
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


Exodus 21
20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.


1 Peter 2
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.


Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

I must have missed it - maybe you can explain to me what I am missing - nothing here about slavery being a mere "economic exchange for food and shelter".

Buying foreign people to keep as your possessions, that you can then give to your kids as THEIR possessions - does not sound at all like a mere economic tit-for-tat.

But if you’re against all kinds of slavery, do you only buy fair trade goods? Do you watch pornography, in which countless participants were trafficked sex slaves or teen runaways who came from lives of prostitution and drug addiction?

Put differently, can you spend less time complaining about an ancient book—much of which you say is myth and never happened in real life—and more time putting your money where your mouth is? My wife and I have given generously and sacrificially to rescue people from slavery, because we love Jesus Christ.

Good for you.

It doesn't rescue your ancient book of "moral" instruction from the fact that it shows that Jehovah clearly had no problem with slavery - to include beatings and rapes.

 

[tas8831]

We are at a "reductio" with you because you still won't say how you know right from wrong as a materialist, how it is that some animals show some empathy while some eat their own species. You have subjective morals and mostly emotional arguments.

Why should it matter what I think about these issues?

I could be a meth-addicted incestuous pedophile, like Trump - and that would have ZERO relevance to the fact that your Law Giver, your All-Loving, All-Knowing God was totally fine with slavery, and it had nothing to do with paying off debts (for foreigners or females).

It is only through your desperation to rescue that which you have, for some reason, decided to base your life on that you engage in these transparently desperate acts of deflection and burden shifting.

It is most instructive.

 

[tas8831]

If your deity provides you - COMMANDS you - with absolute morals, then why does your deity not only condone, but provide you with sickening rules FOR the practice?

You can copy-paste tour desperation all you feel you need to - the fact remains that your own Holy Book cuts your legs out from under when pretending that Jehovah provides you with 'absolute morals.'

Your post is self-defeating, note your tautological (false) argument:

If a God provides absolute morals, how can His morals be so profane? Translation: I believe in absolute morals, slavery, for example, is always objectively, not subjectively wrong, therefore absolute morals exist, therefore no God exists who provided absolute morals.

Hilarious in your desperation.

I don't think you understand what a tautology actually is:

"a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form."

Indeed, tautological arguments are, by definition, TRUE. Not that it matters, for I did not create a tautology, YOU did (and it wasn't even a tautology! ).

Not only that, you have misrepresented my position for the purpose of constructing what you hoped was a wining argument - you created a strawman, a fallacious argument, which really is your only option at this point.

You cannot bring yourself to admit what your deity really thought of slavery - as some of the other SuperChristians in this thread have done and sought to simply blow it off as no biggie (like Moz, who just wants to pawn off Jehovah's endorsement of slavery as an acknowledgement of the 'way things were back then' - what's a God to do?).

I have never said absolute morals exist - you and your kind are the ones that foolishly believe that, even as you point to the Great Double-Standards Bearer, the Do as I say, not as I do deity as your source of 'morality.'

It is funny to me how conservative religionists like to portray those they despise as being 'moral relativists', when it seems in most cases it is the conservative Christianists that are the MOST likely to be moral relativists.

Love thy neighbor? Sure, as long as they ain't Mexikin' or libruls' or sissies. Then we hates 'em! Just like the bible says!

So to sum up:


ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm sorry but I don't know what you're trying to say here. My "god" evolution? I don't know what you're referring to.


My argument can be simplifed in the very way I simplified it. It doesn't need to be re-worded to say/imply things I didn't say/imply.
What I would like is for you to address the argument I actually made, rather than the one you wanted me to make. Just this one time, that would be great.
Let's try an intellectually honest discussion, because anything else isn't going to get us anywhere..


Yeah, it was probably worse than American slavery, or at least, just as bad.
Just because it's not "American" slavery doesn't make it not slavery - what's described in the Bible is slavery. I.e. The owning of human being as property.
Also, I'm not sure how you can say there were no beatings given that the Bible specifically outlines how a slave can be beaten as long as they recover after a day or two "since the slave is their property." (Exodus 21:20-21) What's the point in God saying that, if there were no beatings?


I do my best to do what I think is right.

I buy fair trade goods as much as I can and I don't purchase or wear diamonds. I don't eat meat very often and if I do, I make sure it comes from local free range farms.

I have no idea what this has to do with Biblical morality. Does the Bible tell me to purchase fair trade goods and victimless porn?


No. Not when I have a bunch of people telling me the stuff contained within the Bible represents absolute morality handed down by some deity and that I must follow it, especially when it contains all kinds of horrendous and immoral actions and commands.

What I'd prefer is that people actually think through the consequences of their actions in the real world and their effects on other sentient creatures, rather than taking orders written down in ancient books written by people who knew far less about just about everything than we do today. We've had a few thousand years to work and improve upon the morality first thought up by our ancient ancestors, but you'd rather stick with those first attempts at morality from long ago and that leaves you with the problem of having to defend the slavery described in the Bible. I just wish we could move on, given that there are far better methods of determining morality than just blindly taking orders from invisible deities. That's not an exercise in morality, in my opinion.

Let's address YOUR argument, yes:

"What I'd prefer is that people actually think through the consequences of their actions in the real world and their effects on other sentient creatures, rather than taking orders written down in ancient books written by people who knew far less about just about everything than we do today."

Redacted:

"My human ancestors, my parents, were morons. I know better than them, or their God. My subjective morality is superior. Masturbating, while I watch people gang rape other people in porn, even though I would intervene if I saw someone getting gang raped for real, is okay, because it's not like those trafficked teens who are now used up, suicidal 20-year-olds are Bible slaves. The real problem isn't my porn or me not purchasing fair trade good, you know, victimizing living people, it's the book our ancestors wrote long ago."

 

[BilliardsBall]

I wonder why you use human examples, like pornography, USA slavery, etc. you guys do that a lot. When we mention genocide perpetrated by your moral giver, it is not uncommon to hear: Look at Stalin, he also killed women and children. Hitler, too. Not to speak of Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Dracula, or whomever.

Apart from showing that your God is not worse than some pornographers, and Stalin, I really wonder what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

One of my points:

If evolution is amoral, and you have no god, but devoutly follow evolution, you cannot say any kind of killing, subjugation, etc. is moral or immoral, logically speaking.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am amazed that bible experts are so ignorant of their Holy Book - or is it that you see no problem misconstruing/misreporting/misrepresenting it for argument purposes?

Let's see if bible slavery is really about an 'economic food and shelter':

EXODUS 21
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


Exodus 21
20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.


1 Peter 2
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.


Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

I must have missed it - maybe ya'll 'SuperChristians' can explain to me what I am missing - nothing here about slavery being a mere "economic exchange for food and shelter".

Buying foreign people to keep as your possessions, that you can then give to your kids as THEIR possessions - does not sound at all like a mere economic tit-for-tat.

But I forgot - I'm the one with "double standards" because I eat eggs or some such nonsense.

In the ANE, what were the opportunities for remission of debt? What do the words "indentured servitude" mean to you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure it is - southern confederate slave states used Scripture to justify what they did- just one example:

Texas
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

...She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?...
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.​

Let's see if bible slavery is really about an 'economic food and shelter':

EXODUS 21
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


Exodus 21
20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.


1 Peter 2
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.


Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

I must have missed it - maybe you can explain to me what I am missing - nothing here about slavery being a mere "economic exchange for food and shelter".

Buying foreign people to keep as your possessions, that you can then give to your kids as THEIR possessions - does not sound at all like a mere economic tit-for-tat.

Good for you.

It doesn't rescue your ancient book of "moral" instruction from the fact that it shows that Jehovah clearly had no problem with slavery - to include beatings and rapes.

Yes, American slavery had beatings and rapes. Where does the Bible proscribe such behavior?

Do you enjoy pornography, where men and women are beaten, raped, trafficked and drug-addicted, for your pleasure? Can you think of some Bible statements related to prostitution, drug addiction, human trafficking, lust, and hypocrisy?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why should it matter what I think about these issues?

I could be a meth-addicted incestuous pedophile, like Trump - and that would have ZERO relevance to the fact that your Law Giver, your All-Loving, All-Knowing God was totally fine with slavery, and it had nothing to do with paying off debts (for foreigners or females).

It is only through your desperation to rescue that which you have, for some reason, decided to base your life on that you engage in these transparently desperate acts of deflection and burden shifting.

It is most instructive.

I don't understand. YOUR morality and YOUR behavior has "nothing to do" with YOU judging my morality or my book? Do you not understand why I've said you have double standards?

MY morality and MY book judges you, that is my perspective, and I have no double standard about that. For example, I judge that you have a clear double standard.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hilarious in your desperation.

I don't think you understand what a tautology actually is:

"a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form."

Indeed, tautological arguments are, by definition, TRUE. Not that it matters, for I did not create a tautology, YOU did (and it wasn't even a tautology! ).

Not only that, you have misrepresented my position for the purpose of constructing what you hoped was a wining argument - you created a strawman, a fallacious argument, which really is your only option at this point.

You cannot bring yourself to admit what your deity really thought of slavery - as some of the other SuperChristians in this thread have done and sought to simply blow it off as no biggie (like Moz, who just wants to pawn off Jehovah's endorsement of slavery as an acknowledgement of the 'way things were back then' - what's a God to do?).

I have never said absolute morals exist - you and your kind are the ones that foolishly believe that, even as you point to the Great Double-Standards Bearer, the Do as I say, not as I do deity as your source of 'morality.'

It is funny to me how conservative religionists like to portray those they despise as being 'moral relativists', when it seems in most cases it is the conservative Christianists that are the MOST likely to be moral relativists.

Love thy neighbor? Sure, as long as they ain't Mexikin' or libruls' or sissies. Then we hates 'em! Just like the bible says!

So to sum up:


ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

You misconstrued my intent, so I'll restate:

Your argument appears to be: "Biblical morals are profane, because I believe slavery is wrong, and wherever my subjective morals don't intersect with any other belief system, I KNOW I'm right, since my subjective morals are absolutely inflexible. Slavery is ALWAYS "subjectively" wrong."

Thus, a typological error between subjectivity and objectivity, and a tautological error.

 

[tas8831]

You misconstrued my intent, so I'll restate:

Your argument appears to be: "Biblical morals are profane, because I believe slavery is wrong, and wherever my subjective morals don't intersect with any other belief system, I KNOW I'm right, since my subjective morals are absolutely inflexible. Slavery is ALWAYS "subjectively" wrong."

Thus, a typological error between subjectivity and objectivity, and a tautological error.

First, we have already established that you do not know what a tautology is.

Second, you misrepresent my position, recklessly, and concoct an absurd strawman, I gather because you realize that you cannot logically counter my position.

Third, you are engaging in all of this silly mental gymnastics to try to hoodwink, I guess yourself, into believing that the deity that YOU devoutly follow and worship, had no problem whatsoever with humans being kept (and abused) as property.
You, despite your 3 degrees, has swallowed that obvious lies of YouTube evangelists and crazy creationist ministries regarding slavery in biblical times being only to pay off debts - when it painfully obvious that this was solely for other Hebrews. In fact, in order to get to the Exodus lines about this, one has to GO PAST verses clearly outlining God's permission to buy slaves from foreign hordes as permanent possessions, especially their children:

Exodus 21

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Then there is:

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you
Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

You claim that this is my argument:

"Biblical morals are profane, because I believe slavery is wrong, and wherever my subjective morals don't intersect with any other belief system, I KNOW I'm right, since my subjective morals are absolutely inflexible. Slavery is ALWAYS "subjectively" wrong."​

I've said nothing about biblical morals being "profane" - I have said that your God is not a very good role model (in so many words), for He is more of a 'do as I say, not as I do' Law Giver.
You claim that this deity 'outlaws' slavery as far as you are concerned because of the 'love thy neighbor' thing, yet you totally ignore the very clear verses outlining from among whom Hebrews may buy slaves, how the slaves may be punished, how Hebrew masters can get away with murdering their slaves as long as it takes more than 3 days for them to die of their beatings, etc.

YOUR subjective morals - and the subjective morals of most of the hard-core evangelical/born-again types in this thread - seem to allow you to think slavery is totally OK, as long as Jehovah says so, but it is totally bad in other cases.

My "subjective morals" are at least MORAL, and consistently so on this matter. YOUR 'absolute' morals seem as wishy-washy as the love for Trump that so many 'sanctity of marriage'-types exhibit.





ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

 

[tas8831]

In the ANE, what were the opportunities for remission of debt? What do the words "indentured servitude" mean to you?

It means that Jehovah had double standards.

You can pull this sad "apologetics" crap all you want - even as you totally IGNORE what you bible says about foreigners:

EXODUS 21
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.​

So first, you can BUY a Hebrew servant. BUYING someone, even for a limited time, seems an odd way for them to 'pay off debts.'

But not for you, I guess... But look at what happens to the Hebrew slave's kids:

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.​

Master gets to keep Hebrew slave's - you know, the guy that was purchased to pay off debts... - kids AND his wife! So moral!
And if a man sells his daughter as a slave? Well, she gets to be master's pet forever:

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.​

I can barely contain myself - such is my awe at Jehovah's rules for slaves. Wait - there is more:

Exodus 21
20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.​

What's that? Beating people that you bought for - what is your "argument" - for merely paying off their debts? - is totally cool as long as they don;t die!
Again, the awe at your absolute morals just flow through me...

And here we have Jehovah's teachings re: from where good Hebrew folk can buy their slaves:

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you

Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

So awesome! Hebrews - Jehovah's chosen - can buy slaves from heathen nations, the children of foreigners - and heck, if those slaves have kids, they are yours to give YOUR kids, for ever!
Can't beat those rules for merely paying off debts!
Although I do wonder - what were the debts that the children of foreign slaves had in order for them to be kept forever to pay off? Maybe you can explain that to us all, BB?


Back back to reality -

YOUR subjective morals - and the subjective morals of most of the hard-core evangelical/born-again types in this thread - seem to allow you to think slavery is totally OK, as long as Jehovah says so, but it is totally bad in other cases.

My "subjective morals" are at least MORAL, and consistently so on this matter. YOUR 'absolute' morals seem as wishy-washy as the love for Trump that so many 'sanctity of marriage'-types exhibit.


ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

 

[tas8831]

Yes, American slavery had beatings and rapes. Where does the Bible proscribe such behavior?

It doesn't.

Oh - you don't know what "proscribe" means, sorry:

pro·scribe
/prōˈskrīb/
verb

1. forbid, especially by law.
   "strikes remained proscribed in the armed forces"
   
   Similar:
   forbid, prohibit
   
   ban
   • denounce or condemn.
     "certain practices that the Catholic Church proscribed, such as polygyny"

Thanks for making my argument for me, and not even knowing it! That happens a lot with you, btw.

Do you enjoy pornography, where men and women are beaten, raped, trafficked and drug-addicted, for your pleasure?

Not especially, but you seem to know a lot about this kind of pornography. I have a suspicion that a large number of conservative Christians do like that sort of thing, however. A few days ago, I came across a list of such folks that had been convicted of their crimes. There were hundreds.

Can you think of some Bible statements related to prostitution, drug addiction, human trafficking, lust, and hypocrisy?

Nope, but I can list one conservative Christian that, in his zeal to cover up the fact that his bible allows slavery - his Law Giver gave no laws proscribing it (sorry - outlawing) - tries to dodge and divert and distort my position. Soon perhaps you will claiming that slavery was just a thing in those days, no biggie - like the other 'argument' from zealots on here.

YOUR subjective morals - and the subjective morals of most of the hard-core evangelical/born-again types in this thread - seem to allow you to think slavery is totally OK, as long as Jehovah says so, but it is totally bad in other cases.

My "subjective morals" are at least MORAL, and consistently so on this matter. YOUR 'absolute' morals seem as wishy-washy as the love for Trump that so many 'sanctity of marriage'-types exhibit.


ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

 

[tas8831]

I don't understand. YOUR morality and YOUR behavior has "nothing to do" with YOU judging my morality or my book?

Hypothetically, that is correct.

Your hypocrisy does not seem to affect your frequent judgement of others.

Do you not understand why I've said you have double standards?

Yes - that is your go-to dodge, your typical ad hominem. It is what you do when you've got nothing of merit to offer.

Of course, I've never claimed to be an all knowing, all loving creator deity with absolute morals, have I?

I've never claimed to be a devotee of such a being, have I?

I have never, in my zeal to defend such a "moral absolutist" (i.e., do as He says, not as He does deity) tried to change the subject and dodge and divert as you are doing, have I?

No - that is YOU, Mr.Morality, that has done all of those.

MY morality and MY book judges you,

Your morality and your book in which slavery is OK?

In which the keeping of virgin girls after killing their families is OK?

In which slaughtering infants and fetuses because their parents did not worship the Law Giver of your book and your morality is cool?

THAT book? THAT morality?

My goodness, do you EVER stop and think about what you advocateand argue and assert for even a second?

that is my perspective, and I have no double standard about that. For example, I judge that you have a clear double standard.

And I judge that you have a clear tendency to project your own moral shortcomings and character flaws onto others all so you can prop up your mere beliefs, your mere indoctrination.

YOUR subjective morals - and the subjective morals of most of the hard-core evangelical/born-again types in this thread - seem to allow you to think slavery is totally OK, as long as Jehovah says so, but it is totally bad in other cases.

My "subjective morals" are at least MORAL, and consistently so on this matter. YOUR 'absolute' morals seem as wishy-washy as the love for Trump that so many 'sanctity of marriage'-types exhibit.


ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good grief - yet another "your god is a meanie" thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi
For all those condemning the Bible for allowing slavery, could they please supply what the alternative for war captives and conquered peoples would actually be.

1. the problem wouldn't exist if one wouldn't go on conquest wars in the first place
2. release them and then return to your own lands.

Without a "welfare state" what other solution to destitution is available in the ancient world?

Right, right... the ONLY POSSIBLE alternative is enslavement and being treated like common goods that can be bought, sold or inherited by off spring. Yep, makes perfect sense.

Would banning slavery amongst the Hebrews have stopped the Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Egyptians, Mitani, Hurrians, Philistines, Canaanites and ALL others from carrying on slavery?

"they do it too"
- the juvenile defense of every naughty child



Also a bit hilarious to imply that the creator of the universe and everything it contains is going to make condone and regulate brutally primitive barbaric immoral practices, just to "accomodate" some people that he apparantly has no influence over.

What a (bad) joke.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi

First - please clarify - is it your position that war captives and conquered peoples should be kept as slaves?

My position... well it seems to be a fact that the ancient world had NO mechanism to deal with captured combatants other than slaughter or slavery.

Actually, what position implies, is that your allmighty god was incapable of giving them a mechanism.

What is YOUR solution to having captured 30 000 armed combatants.

You could start by not going on conquest wars....

Truly to have any credibility in attacking what they did do, then you must have an idea for what they should have done instead.

They should have stayed at home instead of invading other territories and enslaving the survivors.

I'm not sure why you would think God devised the system.

If he can tell you not to eat shrimp, he can also tell you not to treat humans as personal private property.

The rules of warfare, mass slaughter or enslavement of captives and all the other stuff were already set by the nations that existed.

Errr.... no. There was no "international law" back then which detailed "rules of engagement" like we have today in international treaties etc. There was no UN or international security council.

The rules were basically dictated by whatever king / emperor / what-have-you from that time.

If you know anything about Gen3:15,16 then you know that God left the rebellious world to make its own rules and he has to navigate his people amongst and within the systems that prevailed.

Yet, he sends commandments all over.
You get killed for working on the sabbath or for disrespecting your parents, but you're fine if you keep slaves and beat them to the brink of dead, as long as they continue to survive for a day or 2 after the beeding. If they die a week later from internal bleeding, then you're just fine.

Ok ... but sarcasm without an alternative is just a waste of time. The only alternative the ancient world had was death of one form or the other, but cool, what is your solution to the homeless and destitute in the ancient world?

Yes, people back then were primitive barbarians that still had a lot to learn.
Basically, you are saying that your god's morality is on the same level.


edit: fixed quotes