I was pointing out that others used it to justify slavery.
Meh anyone can do that. Whether they actually believe it or not.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I was pointing out that others used it to justify slavery.
A fair comment. On rereading the post, @A Vestigial Mote was assuming that the beatings happened all the time.If you hadn't completely removed the context, I don't think a source would be necessary.
All of this is really useful feedback for me. I thank you. The only comment I have is based on this:Well, it is sort of ambiguous, isn't it? All it says is that "Cruelty and arrogance" are found only among "idol-worshipping gentiles," and (besides being a bit absolute and therefore naive if taken literally) what that seems to say to me is that if you don't want to be thought of as an "idol-worshipping gentile," then don't be cruel. In the end, guess what it doesn't say? It doesn't say "no one should be cruel - not even idol-worshipping gentiles." Isn't that interesting?
Unrelated to your question, right off the bat, the statement itself is pretty much rooted in arrogance of its own. They're basically saying that only people that aren't in their tribe are cruel and arrogant - meaning necessarily that they believe themselves to be better than the others, if they believe that those are attributes that are of poorer quality or principles (which is basically assumed). And then they go on to say "By contrast" and then go on to say how great and blessed they are, they hold the keys to goodness, and leave it assumed that everyone else is screwing it all up. Arrogance galore in that paragraph. With an ironic cherry on top that they are ascribing arrogance to anyone but themselves. What the hell is wrong with these people?
the statement itself is pretty much rooted in arrogance of its own. They're basically saying that only people that aren't in their tribe are cruel and arrogant - meaning necessarily that they believe themselves to be better than the others
Who established the slave trade?
Who was defending it (slavery) from those opposed to it?
Where did those in opposition learn that slavery was immoral?
Obviously you didn't even understand what I said one iota. YOUR SOURCE indicated that 24.9% of HOUSEHOLDS (NOT people or population) were slave-owning households. And all this time we have been discussing not the population who are slave owners, but those who would be in support of or defending slavery. And I have only been arguing that it was a damn sight higher than "5%." Plenty of those of the households would have sympathized with the actual slave owners, plus all the people who were worried about the south's financial state or independence, plus all those who didn't want to see a huge population of freed slaves living among them. Way more than 5%. I can't quote an actual number, obviously, but THIS is why I said your 5% number was misleading.The 5% number is adequate. It reflects that 5% of the population of the south owned slaves. Which is accurate. Slaves were very expensive. In today's economy only the top "1%" would be able to be rich enough to own them. Unless you think that 25% of the Souths population was in the top 1% income of the U.S. at the time. Which is a preposterous idea.
I would submit that it couldn't be "Christianity", because "Christianity" claims to have its base in The Bible, and The Bible supports slavery. So, the people who advocated for slavery's abolition were actually going against what is supported in The Bible to do so. So I posit that it wasn't the "Christian" in them, specifically, that had them denouncing slavery, but the general "smart" in them.It was though. I know that goes against the narrative you was taught. But truth tends to do that.
Likely, yes. But the point stands that I don't know their impetus, and I admit this, so you used me as a source when I don't claim to know anything about their motives for certain. However, I suppose this is exactly the type of sourcing I should expect theists to be entirely fine with. I mean... you guys believe in God, for goodness sake.Only if you was disingenuous to begin with. Which I don't think so. I think you was correct, about that. Secular slave owners were driven by greed (mostly).
I know what you wanted to evoke with this story, but I honestly feel no sympathy for your friend. I don't care how civilly a slave is treated. The moment you can tell me that they simply wanted to be with the person that was their "owner" and that it was their free choice to provide that person labor, then that's the moment I would relent and say "okay - you're doing nothing wrong." Outside of that, people who want to say "But we treated the slaves well." should have their faces smeared in the dirt. Claiming to own people who are, by all accounts that really matter, your peers, is an abomination. I can't see it any other way. And again, I can't help but to hope that other people feel the same way, and continue to for the rest of the time humanity exists in this universe.In High School, in History class, a friend of mine raised her hand and disclosed that her family owned a plantation and that they owned slaves, but, treated their slaves well. The comment rendered laughter and ridicule because there are so many accounts of slaves being harshly treated, stolen from their homes, denied access to a simple dignified life. All of this thru no fault of their own. In this case, my friend was ignorant because of the multitudes of accounts from slaves and slave owners to describe what actually happened. We do not have that information for Jewish Slavery system. And there is significant evidence that slaves in this ancient system were criminals found guilty in court.
This is really interesting, and I very much appreciate the conversation.My source is still The Bible itself. It can be assumed that people were beaten, and on top of that, beaten to death enough that they had to put laws in place to curtail it. They wouldn't have had to make the law in the first place if everybody treated their slaves like all apologetic Christians seem to want to pretend was the case - and there were no beatings, etc.
Although, I suppose we need to establish that first: Do you believe that the laws surrounding slavery written into The Bible were proactive and had no actual precedent established for their foundations? Alternatively, do you have anything to provide evidence that any precedent of cruelty within slavery was set only by outsiders or "idol-worshipping gentiles?"
Based on an assumption:It can be assumed that people were beaten, and on top of that, beaten to death
They wouldn't have had to make the law in the first place if there were no beatings
do you have anything to provide evidence that any precedent of cruelty within slavery was set only by outsiders or "idol-worshipping gentiles?
Who says that there was a crime? Slavery is not moral period. You appear to be trying to justify the wrongs of the past.If a person wants to discuss whether 1 lash or 20 lashes is moral, they would need to know the crime and have access to the evidence.
I understand that. But what it does say, by process of elimination, is that ALL of their own people are not arrogant or cruel. If they turn out to be... then they are apparently "idol-worshipping gentiles!" It's like a really bad, unsound deductive argument with a "No-True-Scotsman" twist:All of this is really useful feedback for me. I thank you. The only comment I have is based on this:
Yes, I see how that sounds arrogant. But, the statement doesn't say ALL idol-worshipping gentiles are cruel. It says that it is found among them. So not ALL are cruel.
Are you sure of that? I think the objection was to beatings period.A fair comment. On rereading the post, @A Vestigial Mote was assuming that the beatings happened all the time.
It wasn't about evoking sympathy. It was to illustrate the importance of having precedent.I know what you wanted to evoke with this story, but I honestly feel no sympathy for your friend. I don't care how civilly a slave is treated. The moment you can tell me that they simply wanted to be with the person that was their "owner" and that it was their free choice to provide that person labor, then that's the moment I would relent and say "okay - you're doing nothing wrong." Outside of that, people who want to say "But we treated the slaves well." should have their faces smeared in the dirt. Claiming to own people who are, by all accounts that really matter, your peers, is an abomination. I can't see it any other way. And again, I can't help but to hope that other people feel the same way, and continue to for the rest of the time humanity exists in this universe.
It makes sense for you to think that way. It goes back to the concept of idol-worship. Being cruel to someone is idol-worship.I understand that. But what it does say, by process of elimination, is that ALL of their own people are not arrogant or cruel. If they turn out to be... then they are apparently "idol-worshipping gentiles!" It's like a really bad, unsound deductive argument with a "No-True-Scotsman" twist:
- No CHOSEN PEOPLE are ARROGANT OR CRUEL
- ARROGANT OR CRUEL people are only to be found in IDOL WORSHIPPING GENTILES
- Therefore any CHOSEN PEOPLE who turn out to be ARROGANT OR CRUEL are actually IDOL WORSHIPPING GENTILES
Well, then, you could make the case that what was seen in Egypt by the Jews was a form of slavery that they didn't agree with. And this slavery within Egypt may have included people (Egyptians) getting away with beating their slaves to death. That would have provided adequate precedent for someone to write a law, even if there were not a precedent of anyone having broken what would become that law within their own society.This is really interesting, and I very much appreciate the conversation.
On thing to note: I consider the best information on anything in the Old Testament to be Orthodox Jewish scholars. And that is where I go when trying to understand what is happening in the Old Testament. Something very important about Orthodox Judaism is they, forgive me if I am misspeaking Jewish people, believe that the law was given at the same time as the text of the old testament. And it sounds really strange, but, I think it makes a lot of sense.
So: you made an assumption... based on an assumption: I'll quote it below:
Assumption:
Based on an assumption:
Now... I know it sounds crazy to Atheists and non-Jewish people... but according to Orthodox Judaism, the law was given at the same time as the written text. That's part of the religion. Atheists already don't believe in God, or the story in the Old Testament, so they can add this to the list of things they don't believe in too.
shifting to your question in the second part of your reply...
It's hard to answer. There would be no precedent because, according to the story, The Jewish Nation was brand new. According to the story, they were slaves, left Egypt, received the text and the law at the same time. No precedent, no slaves, no theft... etc.
However, in case you are curious, the chain of transmission of the oral law from Moses to Judah HaNasi ( maybe only to EzraTheScribe? ) is documented at the beginning of a book called PirkeiAvot ( Ethics of Our Fathers ). PirkeiAvot is included in the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament. I don't think it is included in the Christian version.
Nonsense. As pointed out by @A Vestigial Mote , a weak attempt at excusing the excesses of the past by using a No True Scotsman Fallacy.@A Vestigial Mote and @Subduction Zone ,
What do both of you think about this specific statement from the Laws of Servitude?
"Cruelty and arrogance are found only among idol-worshipping gentiles. By contrast, the descendants of Abraham our patriarch, i.e., the Jews whom the Holy One, blessed be He, granted the goodness of the Torah and commanded to observe righteous statutes and judgments, are merciful to all."
Cruelty is prohibited? Isn't it? Am I still being naive?
It makes sense for you to think that way. It goes back to the concept of idol-worship. Being cruel to someone is idol-worship.
Still a problem with "court ordered slavery" - who gets to do the "owning?" There's where the real crux of the issue lies. When one person holds the opinion that they somehow "own" the other person, there is a problem. A failure in reasoning and just a grand farce being played out as if it is reality. It is "might makes right" as if that were just okay, and shouldn't be challenged.It wasn't about evoking sympathy. It was to illustrate the importance of having precedent.
I still feel like we are not comparing apples to apples.
I am talking about a court ordered court mandated criminal sentence of slavery. You are talking about the idea of one person owning another person. I am speaking about a practice, you are speaking about a principle?
To be fair, (also @dybmh) I did assume that beatings happened fairly routinely. And I probably did use some over-the-top qualifier like "all the time." But in the end, beating is permitted within the law. To imagine that this wasn't purposeful, and that there weren't people who took advantage of that fact when these people were allowed and even encouraged to believe that they literally owned the other person, is borderline preposterous in my opinion.Are you sure of that? I think the objection was to beatings period.
post#206 shows it was an assumption.Are you sure of that? I think the objection was to beatings period.
Well... It doesn't happen anymore. So... it has been challenged. And. Your point of view was determined to be correct.Still a problem with "court ordered slavery" - who gets to do the "owning?" There's where the real crux of the issue lies. When one person holds the opinion that they somehow "own" the other person, there is a problem. A failure in reasoning and just a grand farce being played out as if it is reality. It is "might makes right" as if that were just okay, and shouldn't be challenged.
And what makes one a "gentile" then? All I know is, one of the dictionary definitions gave me a chuckle: "a person who is not Jewish, especially a Christian." Whew... I just wish this stuff weren't so much fun, honestly. I waste entirely too much time on it.It makes sense for you to think that way. It goes back to the concept of idol-worship. Being cruel to someone is idol-worship.