"One Nation Under God"....?

6,601 Views | 129 Replies | Last: 14 days ago by Aggrad08
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:39p, 4/26/24
AG
Quote:
That does not suggest any manner of forcing people into slavery. Their offspring would have to take up the terms of their arrangement with his parents. It's not analogous to chattel slavery. Later in the same chapter it says for the slave is his money. That's a direct reference to debt slavery. I know it's hard not to force your modern perspective onto the Bible.
The passage in Exodus 21 ends without any mention of the children taking up arrangements. It's actually a bit more insidious than that. Verses 2-6 describe a situation in which a slave owner gives the slave a wife with whom that slave might have children. Then, when the slave is eventually freed his wife and children are still enslaved. If he wants to stay with them he has to agree to be a slave for the rest of his life.

Again, you are failing to make a distinction between Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves. The rules you quote did not apply to non-Hebrews. I would agree that Hebrews can't be forced into slavery, but non-Hebrews absolutely were. The Bible offers clear narratives of cities being attacked and the inhabitants killed or enslaved. What do you think that is if not forced slavery? It's honestly shocking to sit here and watch you respond as if the enslavement of non-Hebrews either didn't exist or operated under the same rules when that is clearly and demonstrably false.
Reply Quote
5
one MEEN Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:59p, 4/26/24
AG
This is all so tired. Morality is upstream of law creation and religion is upstream of morality. Your religious views inform your morals and law creation is just a conduit that reinforces and reflects the morals of the people who live under their own laws.

The original makeup of America is primarily western protestants who were seeking both economic opportunity and religious freedom. Protestantism at its core is a rejection of hierarchy and the protestants at the time had their fill of persecution from other denominations and government as well. So naturally, the founding wave of americans were full of people who thought no king is better than a bad king. Protestantism is also a halfway stop to secularism. Once you start denying the sacraments and denying authority and you're gonna eventually wind up with 'I'm my own pope and whatever I say goes.' Its taken a few hundred years but its here now.

So given those founders religious and persecution background, its not hard to see that the founding fathers had a supermajority of protestant beliefs and foundations, but publicly professed secularism as a way to prevent the two main sources of persecution in their previous life, the church and the state, from popping back up in their own new government.

American freedom and western democracy are absolutely parts of the western christian demographic. Someone please point to a non christian democracy in this world, especially one that formed from their own roots not just copied the west.

Sapper and friends like to act that islam could've created the western ethos like it sprung up out of the dirt. If europe hadn't stopped the muslim expansion in Spain & Eastern Europe, muslim culture took over europe completely, there wouldn't be an america in its current form.

And this is the big hand waive that always goes down on this thread. That the atheist can reject everything about the founding fathers and christian foundational ethics and still come up with something that looks like a country they'd like to live in. Eventually society always cedes to whomever wins the immigration + baby making race, and its never the atheists who win that race.

Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 4:16p, 4/26/24
AG
Rocag said:
Quote:
That does not suggest any manner of forcing people into slavery. Their offspring would have to take up the terms of their arrangement with his parents. It's not analogous to chattel slavery. Later in the same chapter it says for the slave is his money. That's a direct reference to debt slavery. I know it's hard not to force your modern perspective onto the Bible.
The passage in Exodus 21 ends without any mention of the children taking up arrangements. It's actually a bit more insidious than that. Verses 2-6 describe a situation in which a slave owner gives the slave a wife with whom that slave might have children. Then, when the slave is eventually freed his wife and children are still enslaved. If he wants to stay with them he has to agree to be a slave for the rest of his life.

Again, you are failing to make a distinction between Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves. The rules you quote did not apply to non-Hebrews. I would agree that Hebrews can't be forced into slavery, but non-Hebrews absolutely were. The Bible offers clear narratives of cities being attacked and the inhabitants killed or enslaved. What do you think that is if not forced slavery? It's honestly shocking to sit here and watch you respond as if the enslavement of non-Hebrews either didn't exist or operated under the same rules when that is clearly and demonstrably false.


I don't agree with you, and there's a ton of exegesis and biblical scholarship that rejects your view of scripture. I don't find that distinction except that Hebrews could only be made a slave via court order. Where do you see this difference in kind? That is, they could kidnap non-Hebrews against their will, but just not Hebrews? Your quote about killing everyone and taking the women is normally used to do what you're doing, but about genocide, and I didn't want to veer even further off topic.

The issue is you're not making a good faith effort, any at all really, to reconcile the incarnation and the sermon on the mount, which was revolutionary, to the God of the Old Testament, and Jewish Law. And the fact that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill the Law. Why didn't the apostles see a contradiction? Were they stupid? Was Aquinas stupid? You're trying to prove a point that it's impossible to know that American slavery is objectively evil. And yet somehow we know it is immoral, and it was resolved early on in Church History. The old law alludes to the dignity of the human person even among slaves, which was a novelty in human history. If you can find something to the contrary, an acknowledgement in any law before that point, that all men including slaves possessed and were to be treated with human dignity, I would love for you to show it to me. I know of nothing like that.

I grant you that there are ACTUAL objects of disagreement within Christianity, but there's no disagreement about the fact that there exists a law giver. And that's the pretext around any conversation about the morality of anything.

But how is it that your epistemological framework allows you to know anything at all is objectively true? Do you know anything at all about how life came to exist in the first place? How are you not a solipcist? You grant certain unprovable things to yourself, but when it comes to a creator and the moral law, you can't prove it which is proof of its non existence?
Reply Quote
one MEEN Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 4:19p, 4/26/24
AG
Rocag said:
Quote:
That does not suggest any manner of forcing people into slavery. Their offspring would have to take up the terms of their arrangement with his parents. It's not analogous to chattel slavery. Later in the same chapter it says for the slave is his money. That's a direct reference to debt slavery. I know it's hard not to force your modern perspective onto the Bible.
The passage in Exodus 21 ends without any mention of the children taking up arrangements. It's actually a bit more insidious than that. Verses 2-6 describe a situation in which a slave owner gives the slave a wife with whom that slave might have children. Then, when the slave is eventually freed his wife and children are still enslaved. If he wants to stay with them he has to agree to be a slave for the rest of his life.

Again, you are failing to make a distinction between Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves. The rules you quote did not apply to non-Hebrews. I would agree that Hebrews can't be forced into slavery, but non-Hebrews absolutely were. The Bible offers clear narratives of cities being attacked and the inhabitants killed or enslaved. What do you think that is if not forced slavery? It's honestly shocking to sit here and watch you respond as if the enslavement of non-Hebrews either didn't exist or operated under the same rules when that is clearly and demonstrably false.
Remember, all slaves/laborers are given rest every seventh year as the land lied fallow - the Sabbath year. And all land is supposed to be returned to its original owner and all slaves freed every 50th year - The Year of Jubilee. There is no evidence that Israel followed this, and we have God talking to Daniel about how the exile will last as long as every missed Sabbath year. So before we get into bible interpretation its important to split what Israel should do versus what they did. They were not supposed to go on slaving runs - period. The fact they did doesn't make it okay.

On the temple and piercing of the ear - this is establishing the theme of voluntary enslavement. The christian worldview is that we are slaves regardless. Are we slaves to sin or slaves to Christ? It was voluntary. A slave didn't have to love his owner, but if they did they could go before the priests, confirm it, and become a lifelong slave.

Christ talks about the Torah given is not all aspirational ethics. Within the torah, Israelites had the law on their side to go eye for an eye. Jesus laments giving them divorce because of their hardened hearts. Making rules around slavery is in the same category. The aspirational part is to give freedom, the economic reality of the times included rules for the bare minimum of treatment of slaves. (Which includes treating them well, welcoming them, and freeing them). This is why when Jesus is asked about the greatest commandments he picks aspirational parts of the Torah - love your God with all your heart soul and mind (Deuteronomy 6:5) , and love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:9-18).


Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:08p, 4/26/24
AG
Or even more challenging - what you say are the aspirational parts of the Torah are in fact the way the entirety of it is to be understood.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 9:01p, 4/26/24
AG
You're asking me to defend things I didn't say, which is weird. Yes, the Bible has different laws for Hebrew slaves versus non-Hebrew slaves. It's odd that anyone who even claims to have read the Bible would doubt that. Hebrew slaves would serve six years and be set free on the seventh (Exodus 21:2) while foreign slaves are kept forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). Arguably, a Hebrew servant shouldn't be considered a slave at all (Leviticus 25:39). There was an explicit rule against kidnapping Hebrews to use as slaves (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such rule can be found for non-Hebrews in the Bible. And the Bible shows the the Israelites taking slaves from the populations they conquer and explicitly lists people along with sheep, cattle, and donkeys as spoils of war (Numbers 31:32-47).

I don't see that any of those points are really debatable. They aren't statements of opinion, that's what the verses say. The hypocrisy I see is Christians who argue that American slavery was bad and evil, but Biblical slavery was happy and morally just!

And to reiterate, I don't claim to have an objective standard. I don't see how the origin of life has anything to do with that. My personal beliefs don't require an objective standard to exist. Is my life ultimately pointless from some universal point of view? Yeah, probably. But why should I care about that? Am I the universe? No, I'm confined to my limited point of view in this limited timeframe.
Reply Quote
3
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 1:23a, 4/27/24
AG
Rocag said:
You're asking me to defend things I didn't say, which is weird. Yes, the Bible has different laws for Hebrew slaves versus non-Hebrew slaves. It's odd that anyone who even claims to have read the Bible would doubt that. Hebrew slaves would serve six years and be set free on the seventh (Exodus 21:2) while foreign slaves are kept forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). Arguably, a Hebrew servant shouldn't be considered a slave at all (Leviticus 25:39). There was an explicit rule against kidnapping Hebrews to use as slaves (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such rule can be found for non-Hebrews in the Bible. And the Bible shows the the Israelites taking slaves from the populations they conquer and explicitly lists people along with sheep, cattle, and donkeys as spoils of war (Numbers 31:32-47).

I don't see that any of those points are really debatable. They aren't statements of opinion, that's what the verses say. The hypocrisy I see is Christians who argue that American slavery was bad and evil, but Biblical slavery was happy and morally just!

And to reiterate, I don't claim to have an objective standard. I don't see how the origin of life has anything to do with that. My personal beliefs don't require an objective standard to exist. Is my life ultimately pointless from some universal point of view? Yeah, probably. But why should I care about that? Am I the universe? No, I'm confined to my limited point of view in this limited timeframe.
I cited Exodus 21:16 already which forbids kidnapping people against their will without qualification. It doesn't only pertain to Hebrews. Period end of story. You're wrong when you say there's no rule against kidnapping non-Hebrews. There's a voluntarism in the kind of slavery in Mosaic law that's not violative of human dignity that would make it intrinsically evil otherwise. The recognition of their humanity is evident, but you're ignoring it because it doesn't serve your wrong position.

"Had I refused justice to my manservant or to my maidservant, when they had a complaint against me, What then should I do when God rises up? What could I answer when he demands an account? Did not he who made me in the belly make him? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?" -Job 31:13-15

Listing things alongside each other doesn't imply they belong to the same category of thing. See Genesis 1:27, again.

I gave a plain distinction between the Mosaic Law, and American Chattel slavery. A recognition in the Law that men are created by God in His image. But, from my perspective God is our creator. He's perfectly Just. His Law is perfectly Just. He's the Law. Even if your interpretation is correct, and mine is wrong. It wouldn't mean I was being hypocritical. Just that I'm mistaken, and all kinds of slavery are at least morally ambiguous. Where's the hypocrisy in following God's law as communicated to us by the people given authority by Him to interpret His revelation?

I know you're not claiming an objective moral standard. I assumed you at least claim there are objective truths that are knowable about the physical world. That we exist, and are engaging each other in a back and forth on TexAgs. Also things which are unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Wasn't that the reason you gave as to why we can't know what the good is? Maybe it was someone else.
Reply Quote
1
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:55p, 4/27/24
AG
Again, you've not dealt with the fact that there's good reason to think that the taking of foreign slaves would not have been considered kidnapping. There are examples of the just this happening in the Bible and at no point is it equated to kidnapping. The people taken on God's command are listed as spoils of war along with livestock. You're trying to argue that all slavery described in the Bible was voluntary and that's just not true. Slaves are explicitly called property to be bought, sold, and inherited.

And even if the kidnapping rule applied, which you haven't demonstrated it did, where do you think the foreign slaves the Hebrews were buying were coming from? You're delusional if you think ancient slavery was voluntary. Actually, even in American slavery most of the American slave owners weren't the ones actually going to Africa and enslaving the natives. They were just buying them (like the Hebrews were allowed to do).

Saying Biblical slavery was different because of Genesis 1:27 is silly. Most American slave owners were Christians who probably could have quoted it and would have professed to believe it and not even seen the contradiction.

And sure, I believe objective reality exists. Though our perception of it is of course subjective. We could get into the "brain in a jar" or simulation thought exercises but I assume those to not be true. I use "good" in a descriptive and subjective sense. I don't claim things are objectively good or bad.
Reply Quote
4
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 9:38p, 4/27/24
AG
Rocag said:
Again, you've not dealt with the fact that there's good reason to think that the taking of foreign slaves would not have been considered kidnapping. There are examples of the just this happening in the Bible and at no point is it equated to kidnapping. The people taken on God's command are listed as spoils of war along with livestock. You're trying to argue that all slavery described in the Bible was voluntary and that's just not true. Slaves are explicitly called property to be bought, sold, and inherited.

And even if the kidnapping rule applied, which you haven't demonstrated it did, where do you think the foreign slaves the Hebrews were buying were coming from? You're delusional if you think ancient slavery was voluntary. Actually, even in American slavery most of the American slave owners weren't the ones actually going to Africa and enslaving the natives. They were just buying them (like the Hebrews were allowed to do).

Saying Biblical slavery was different because of Genesis 1:27 is silly. Most American slave owners were Christians who probably could have quoted it and would have professed to believe it and not even seen the contradiction.

And sure, I believe objective reality exists. Though our perception of it is of course subjective. We could get into the "brain in a jar" or simulation thought exercises but I assume those to not be true. I use "good" in a descriptive and subjective sense. I don't claim things are objectively good or bad.

This law is about kidnapping people against their will to keep or sell as slaves. "Whoever steals a man, whether he sells him or is found in possession of him, shall be put to death".

Everything recorded in the Bible isn't condoned in the Law. You're referencing things that either aren't what you're saying, they were voluntarily selling themselves into slavery. Or it was in contravension to the Law. I'm not arguing all slavery in the Bible is not unjust. I'm saying the kind of thing condoned by the Law in the Bible is not analogous to American slavery, and is not intrinsically evil. That's been my claim.

What about this, why did the Church take an anti-slavery stance when it was counter cultural, if the Bible condones it? It wouldn't make sense. What did it stand to gain?
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 11:15p, 4/27/24
AG
You seem to be continually missing the point that the verses rocag is showing you are not simply events. The law itself unequivocally condones chattel slavery for non Jews. Read it, read the rules.

You can say "sure they did those things but it's wrong." You are off in two directions, the law itself condones the act and the actions undertaken in accordance with those laws are not regarded as wrongful in the context of the stories. God never punished them for the act or denounces it.

Ultimately the moral rules of the OT are something thinking Jews and Christians, and Muslims to he extent of overlap and for other problematic verses of their own need to wrestle with.

Any notion of pretending to find modern moral views on things like slavery or genocide in the OT is utterly hopeless. The text is so thoroughly damning.

Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 12:10a, 4/28/24
AG
Aggrad08 said:
You seem to be continually missing the point that the verses rocag is showing you are not simply events. The law itself unequivocally condones chattel slavery for non Jews. Read it, read the rules.

You can say "sure they did those things but it's wrong." You are off in two directions, the law itself condones the act and the actions undertaken in accordance with those laws are not regarded as wrongful in the context of the stories. God never punished them for the act or denounces it.

Ultimately the moral rules of the OT are something thinking Jews and Christians, and Muslims to he extent of overlap and for other problematic verses of their own need to wrestle with.

Any notion of pretending to find modern moral views on things like slavery or genocide in the OT is utterly hopeless. The text is so thoroughly damning.



You're the one missing the point. The parts of the law he's quoting continually are referencing voluntary slavery. Slaves have the right to redeem themselves should they earn enough money. They couldn't enslave their brethren if they fell on hard times, but their brethren could sell themselves to foreigners, and Israelites likewise could buy sojourners from surrounding areas who would sell themselves into slavery. It's not analogous to chattel slavery. Nothing in the law says they could kidnap people against their will to enslave them or sell as slaves. It says exactly the opposite.
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 12:25a, 4/28/24
AG
Bob Lee said:
Aggrad08 said:
You seem to be continually missing the point that the verses rocag is showing you are not simply events. The law itself unequivocally condones chattel slavery for non Jews. Read it, read the rules.

You can say "sure they did those things but it's wrong." You are off in two directions, the law itself condones the act and the actions undertaken in accordance with those laws are not regarded as wrongful in the context of the stories. God never punished them for the act or denounces it.

Ultimately the moral rules of the OT are something thinking Jews and Christians, and Muslims to he extent of overlap and for other problematic verses of their own need to wrestle with.

Any notion of pretending to find modern moral views on things like slavery or genocide in the OT is utterly hopeless. The text is so thoroughly damning.



You're the one missing the point. The parts of the law he's quoting continually are referencing voluntary slavery. Slaves have the right to redeem themselves should they earn enough money. They couldn't enslave their brethren if they fell on hard times, but their brethren could sell themselves to foreigners, and Israelites likewise could buy sojourners from surrounding areas who would sell themselves into slavery. It's not analogous to chattel slavery. Nothing in the law says they could kidnap people against their will to enslave them or sell as slaves. It says exactly the opposite.

Literally everything you wrote is false. You are confusing the rules for Jews with the rules for others. There is a clear distinction in the text between foreign slaves and hebrews. In any verse you want to reference for buying freedom or release upon jubilee you will see it explicitly say Hebrew servant or fellow Israelite ect.

For non Jewish slaves your slaves children are your slaves for life. And it explicitly condoned forced slavery for war captives. This isnt hard to find Leviticus 25 isn't very long, just read it and you will see what we are talking about.


9 "'If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 12:47a, 4/28/24
AG
I'm not saying what you're saying I am. Maybe just quote the part of the law that says foreigners could be forced into slavery against their will. And we can all move on.

I quoted the part of the law that expressly forbids it.
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 7:22a, 4/28/24
AG
Bob Lee said:
I'm not saying what you're saying I am. Maybe just quote the part of the law that says foreigners could be forced into slavery against their will. And we can all move on.

I quoted the part of the law that expressly forbids it.


Yes you are. Let's go one step at a time, you are backtracking. In fact simply rereading your own post directly before mine demonstrates this.

You tried to claim chattel slavery didn't exist, it was only debt slavery. The verse I posted above soundly disproves that. The debt slavery for Jews is very distinct from the chattel slavery for others. Any further objection on that point?

Then we will get to the capture of slaves and sex slaves. Not that your point isn't inherently absurd as I already posted above that chattel slaves could be purchased from those other nations around. So even if you were correct that a Jew couldn't capture an involuntary chattel slave (you aren't). It's completely legal for them to buy one. Right here alone we have a completely immoral and indefensible law if you would only read it. And it's plenty to justify the American slave trade that relied upon already captured west African slaves that were captured by others and held as slaves for life, along with their children.


Reply Quote
2
3 edits
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 10:30a, 4/28/24
AG
Aggrad08 said:
Bob Lee said:
I'm not saying what you're saying I am. Maybe just quote the part of the law that says foreigners could be forced into slavery against their will. And we can all move on.

I quoted the part of the law that expressly forbids it.


Yes you are. Let's go one step at a time, you are backtracking. In fact simply rereading your own post directly before mine demonstrates this.

You tried to claim chattel slavery didn't exist, it was only debt slavery. The verse I posted above soundly disproves that. The debt slavery for Jews is very distinct from the chattel slavery for others. Any further objection on that point?

Then we will get to the capture of slaves and sex slaves. Not that your point isn't inherently absurd as I already posted above that chattel slaves could be purchased from those other nations around. So even if you were correct that a Jew couldn't capture an involuntary chattel slave (you aren't). It's completely legal for them to buy one. Right here alone we have a completely immoral and indefensible law if you would only read it. And it's plenty to justify the American slave trade that relied upon already captured west African slaves that were captured by others and held as slaves for life, along with their children.




I didn't backtrack. My claim is that slaves retain their human dignity under mosaic law, so it's not intrinsically evil. To disprove my argument you have to prove it doesn't. I've given a lot of evidence that they did. I'm not arguing over what chattel slavery is. I said it entails kidnapping, but if you want me to grant you that chattel slavery does it definitionally entail that part, then I will and it does nothing to change the distinction between American slavery and the kind regulated in the mosaic law wherein kidnapping people is expressly forbidden, and there was no racial element, and people weren't denied their personood.

If you want to join in on THIS conversation you need to remember that Rocag doesn't find slavery morally repugnant in any context. I'm the one of us who thinks it is. He doesn't. His claim is that it's hypocritical of me to be repulsed by American slavery, if I say biblical slavey is not intrinsically evil. So the ability for slaves to retain their dignity as humans persons under the law is the only thing that matters.
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 11:13a, 4/28/24
AG
Your first statement is nonsense. Being a slave for life, having your children born into slavery for life removes all human dignity. So everything following after that simply doesn't follow. You can beat a slave and as long as you don't remove eyes or teeth and they survive for three days after it's legal. Where's the human dignity?

It states openly that you must not rule over fellow Israelites ruthlessly implying clearly that this is allowed for foreigners.

As I said earlier, buying your freedom and rules against harsh treatment only applies to Jewish slaves. Again simply read the rules.
Reply Quote
6
2 edits
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:28a, 4/28/24
AG
Now go read exodus 31 and tell me where Moses sinned. In no way shape or form are his actions condemned. In no way shape or form is murdering anyone but the virgin girls and taking them and the livestock not kidnapping. They use the taken people in the exact breath as the cattle and plunder every time. They even must make tributes of some of the virgin slaves.

They are virgins to allow for sexual exploitation in accordance with Deuteronomy 21:


"When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."

We have words for these actions. We call it rape and murder
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 11:55a, 4/28/24
AG
Hold up there, guy. I never said I didn't find slavery morally repugnant. I do. Both the American kind and the Biblical kind, which actually aren't as different as Christians would want people to believe. What I've said is that I don't believe an object moral standard exists so I would not describe slavery in terms of objectively bad or something similar. The funny thing is that I've been told numerous times that we atheists are just copying the morality of Christianity but I find myself frequently disturbed by the things which are morally acceptable within the Bible. I find my moral code to be quite different that the one described in the Bible. Especially when we consider the Old Testament.

And you still haven't reconciled the idea that all slaves must be voluntary with the clear taking of slaves as spoils of war.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 12:52p, 4/28/24
AG
Aggrad08 said:
Your first statement is nonsense. Being a slave for life, having your children born into slavery for life removes all human dignity. So everything following after that simply doesn't follow. You can beat a slave and as long as you don't remove eyes or teeth and they survive for three days after it's legal. Where's the human dignity?

It states openly that you must not rule over fellow Israelites ruthlessly implying clearly that this is allowed for foreigners.

As I said earlier, buying your freedom and rules against harsh treatment only applies to Jewish slaves. Again simply read the rules.


It's supposed to be temporal. It says that in Deuteronomy. Israelites werent even supposed to have had to sell themselves into slavery. it doesn't remove their dignity if you believe in the peson of Jesus Christ. That's your problem. If Jesus' claims are true, then it's not slightly problematic.
Reply Quote
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 12:54p, 4/28/24
AG
Rocag said:
Hold up there, guy. I never said I didn't find slavery morally repugnant. I do. Both the American kind and the Biblical kind, which actually aren't as different as Christians would want people to believe. What I've said is that I don't believe an object moral standard exists so I would not describe slavery in terms of objectively bad or something similar. The funny thing is that I've been told numerous times that we atheists are just copying the morality of Christianity but I find myself frequently disturbed by the things which are morally acceptable within the Bible. I find my moral code to be quite different that the one described in the Bible. Especially when we consider the Old Testament.

And you still haven't reconciled the idea that all slaves must be voluntary with the clear taking of slaves as spoils of war.


So you personally find it morally repugnant. You just think it's not ACTUALLY morally repugnant? Does that make any sense?
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 1:24p, 4/28/24
AG
It makes perfect sense. All we've got are opinions. I'm just honest enough not to insist mine are universally true despite my inability to back that claim up.

And again, you're insisting Biblical slavery temporary and ignoring everything showing that was not true. Such as this from Leviticus 25:
Quote:
44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
...as inherited PROPERTY and can make them SLAVES FOR LIFE. You can't simultaneously treat someone with basic human dignity and treat them as property. That is a contradiction.
Reply Quote
5
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 3:37p, 4/28/24
AG
Rocag said:
It makes perfect sense. All we've got are opinions. I'm just honest enough not to insist mine are universally true despite my inability to back that claim up.

And again, you're insisting Biblical slavery temporary and ignoring everything showing that was not true. Such as this from Leviticus 25:
Quote:
44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
...as inherited PROPERTY and can make them SLAVES FOR LIFE. You can't simultaneously treat someone with basic human dignity and treat them as property. That is a contradiction.


You're reading the law through an atheist lens. To get me to acknowlege that slavery in the law was violative of human dignity, I'd have to be convinced that the God of the Old Testament is not the first person of the Trinity. It's impossible for God to perpetrate an injustice on anyone. 18th century American slave owners weren't the Israelites trying to dispossess the Canaanites from God's land. Slaves aren't being referred to as property in the same category as a table or thing that you have. They're still made in God's image.

The reason your view of morality is incoherent is because you probably insist that others treat you and people you care about with human dignity even though your repugnance doesn't reveal anything to you about what is true.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 8:28p, 4/28/24
AG
Bob Lee said:
Aggrad08 said:
Your first statement is nonsense. Being a slave for life, having your children born into slavery for life removes all human dignity. So everything following after that simply doesn't follow. You can beat a slave and as long as you don't remove eyes or teeth and they survive for three days after it's legal. Where's the human dignity?

It states openly that you must not rule over fellow Israelites ruthlessly implying clearly that this is allowed for foreigners.

As I said earlier, buying your freedom and rules against harsh treatment only applies to Jewish slaves. Again simply read the rules.


It's supposed to be temporal. It says that in Deuteronomy. Israelites werent even supposed to have had to sell themselves into slavery. it doesn't remove their dignity if you believe in the peson of Jesus Christ. That's your problem. If Jesus' claims are true, then it's not slightly problematic.


You've completely retreated from your original argument, which is in a way good as you at least see it's hopelessly false.

But this new argument is rubbish too.

You keep talking about people selling themselves, it's not limited to that. Clear as day. For the purposes of this conversation please understand we are not talking about debt slavery.

Now try your argument again with chattle slavery and rape, and see how it goes.

All wrongs we commit are temporal. We are human it's part of the package. Capturing someone and keeping them and their children as slaves for life does remove human dignity even if there is an afterlife.

Also I do congratulate you on accidentally making the same argument as an 1830s Christian slaveholder.
Reply Quote
5
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 8:46p, 4/28/24
AG
Aggrad08 said:
Bob Lee said:
Aggrad08 said:
Your first statement is nonsense. Being a slave for life, having your children born into slavery for life removes all human dignity. So everything following after that simply doesn't follow. You can beat a slave and as long as you don't remove eyes or teeth and they survive for three days after it's legal. Where's the human dignity?

It states openly that you must not rule over fellow Israelites ruthlessly implying clearly that this is allowed for foreigners.

As I said earlier, buying your freedom and rules against harsh treatment only applies to Jewish slaves. Again simply read the rules.


It's supposed to be temporal. It says that in Deuteronomy. Israelites werent even supposed to have had to sell themselves into slavery. it doesn't remove their dignity if you believe in the peson of Jesus Christ. That's your problem. If Jesus' claims are true, then it's not slightly problematic.


You've completely retreated from your original argument, which is in a way good as you at least see it's hopelessly false.

But this new argument is rubbish too.

You keep talking about people selling themselves, it's not limited to that. Clear as day. For the purposes of this conversation please understand we are not talking about debt slavery.

Now try your argument again with chattle slavery and rape, and see how it goes.

All wrongs we commit are temporal. We are human it's part of the package. Capturing someone and keeping them and their children as slaves for life does remove human dignity even if there is an afterlife.

Also I do congratulate you on accidentally making the same argument as an 1830s Christian slaveholder.


You're not putting everything in its proper place. Kidnapping people was against the law, therefore God and the Bible does not condone American slavery. And also slavery was regulated because of the hardness of Man's hearts.

The best kind of analogous modern example I can think to explain it to you is this. If some state's governor came out and plainly said abortion is a moral evil, and then signs abortion legislation that you can have an abortion, but not after 15 weeks, it would not follow that he condones abortion before 15 weeks. It's regulatory. Not prescriptive.

ETA: Regarding Leviticus 25 you referenced. The passage is about returning fellow Israelites to their land during the year of Jubilee. Foreigners didn't have land promised to them by God to return to. Their contract was allowed to extend past that point. But the protections of the law did extend to foreigners. In Leviticus 19:33 "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." The references to being strangers in the land of Egypt is a reoccurring theme. They were oppressed, and they're not permitted to become the oppressors. There are constant appeals to human rights different than any law before it.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 10:32p, 4/28/24
AG
What you're saying is that the plain and obvious meaning of the passage can't be correct because it contradicts your preconceived beliefs. I do think this particular part of Christianity is an interesting topic to study. By that I mean the idea that "I believe X, the Bible is inerrant, therefore the Bible must teach X, therefore anything that appears to disagree with X must be wrong". It leads Christians to conclude some truly odd things as you yourself are demonstrating.

Here's what the Bible says God told the Hebrews about kidnapping people in the nations the were conquering:
Quote:
Numbers 31:25-31

25 The Lord said to Moses, 26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the Lord one out of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the Lord's part. 30 From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the Lord's tabernacle." 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.
Why wasn't that illegal per Exodus 21:16? Did God contradict himself? Or maybe did they just not consider the taking of foreign slaves to be kidnapping in the first place.

And your example with a state governor is flawed. Why would God need to tolerate slavery if he truly opposed it? A governor doesn't have the power of a god to forbid anything he wants. If you think a God who recognizes a practice as evil and then sets up a form of government that allows it anyway is in any way appealing you're wrong.
Reply Quote
3
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 11:07p, 4/28/24
AG
Rocag said:
What you're saying is that the plain and obvious meaning of the passage can't be correct because it contradicts your preconceived beliefs. I do think this particular part of Christianity is an interesting topic to study. By that I mean the idea that "I believe X, the Bible is inerrant, therefore the Bible must teach X, therefore anything that appears to disagree with X must be wrong". It leads Christians to conclude some truly odd things as you yourself are demonstrating.

Here's what the Bible says God told the Hebrews about kidnapping people in the nations the were conquering:
Quote:
Numbers 31:25-31

25 The Lord said to Moses, 26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the Lord one out of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the Lord's part. 30 From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the Lord's tabernacle." 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.
Why wasn't that illegal per Exodus 21:16? Did God contradict himself? Or maybe did they just not consider the taking of foreign slaves to be kidnapping in the first place.

And your example with a state governor is flawed. Why would God need to tolerate slavery if he truly opposed it? A governor doesn't have the power of a god to forbid anything he wants. If you think a God who recognizes a practice as evil and then sets up a form of government that allows it anyway is in any way appealing you're wrong.
I would say that I examined the claims of the incarnation and found them to be credible, so I give a different kind of deference to the rest of the Bible than someone who doesn't find it credible. But my belief's about the nature of God and the metaphysical don't necessarily hinge on my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. And also, Catholics don't adopt the same view of Biblical inerrancy as some protestants do.

The account of the Israelite army wiping out the Midianites is an exaggeration. It's a moral story about Israel's place in the world. They had convinced or tricked them into worshipping idols. It was only by eliminating everyone involved in the apostasy (including the Midianites) that Israel was able to regain its blessings from God. For example, the story says that not a single Israelite soldier was lost.

It's not that God is powerless to stop it, but we know that God for permits suffering to exist. Humans are given the ability to choose, and the ability to choose is the pretext for a moral life. Without it, there would be no such thing as courage or heroic acts for example.

Eta: what would have been plain and obvious to its audience, isn't plain an obvious to us who call to mind American slavery when they read about slavery. When you read "you can make them a slave", in most people's mind in 2024 that means you can enslave them through force. In light of the rest of the Bible, we can infer that's not what it means at all. If you say, "I'm going to make her my wife", it doesn't imply that you're going to force her to marry you because forced marriage wouldn't even be a sacramental reality. That's just an example of how we project a certain image onto mosaic law when it comes to slavery because it carries such a loaded connotation.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 12:51p, 5/2/24
AG
Bob Lee said:



You're not putting everything in its proper place. Kidnapping people was against the law, therefore God and the Bible does not condone American slavery. And also slavery was regulated because of the hardness of Man's hearts.

This is completely the opposite. You are putting things in the wrong place, misunderstanding or deliberately abusing clear context in order to twist the text as desired. Frankly, I don't think you've actually read through these laws and seemed unaware of what the text actually said, leading you to several factual errors that at least most of which you've abandoned.

You are taking a law against kidnapping and applying it to a different context and forcing a clear contradiction in the text where actually none exists. The kidnapping law was in reference to free Israelite citizens. It's abundantly clear, that foreigners could be kidnapped in war, both explicitly within the law and implicitly as examined by the actions of the characters in the stories. This is exactly the opposite of looking at things in the proper place and context.

The equivalent is taking a law against assault or battery, and using it to contradict the clear provision that says you can beat your slaves. Obviously, there is not an actual contradiction, it's simply that slaves, or foreigners would could be made slaves are simply a categorical distinction these people made. Even trying to accept your assertion that both apply does nothing more than force a contradiction and render at least one of the provisions meaningless.

You then go on, in a contradictory manner and say slavery was allowed because of the hardness of mens hearts. What's the basis for this? It says or implies this nowhere in the entire bible. It's explicitly condoned. Your argument then boils down to, God thought this was morally repugnant but allowed it because he didn't think he could convince men not to do it.

Reply Quote
2
BluHorseShu
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 2:20p, 5/2/24
AG
Bob Lee said:
Rocag said:
What you're saying is that the plain and obvious meaning of the passage can't be correct because it contradicts your preconceived beliefs. I do think this particular part of Christianity is an interesting topic to study. By that I mean the idea that "I believe X, the Bible is inerrant, therefore the Bible must teach X, therefore anything that appears to disagree with X must be wrong". It leads Christians to conclude some truly odd things as you yourself are demonstrating.

Here's what the Bible says God told the Hebrews about kidnapping people in the nations the were conquering:
Quote:
Numbers 31:25-31

25 The Lord said to Moses, 26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the Lord one out of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the Lord's part. 30 From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the Lord's tabernacle." 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.
Why wasn't that illegal per Exodus 21:16? Did God contradict himself? Or maybe did they just not consider the taking of foreign slaves to be kidnapping in the first place.

And your example with a state governor is flawed. Why would God need to tolerate slavery if he truly opposed it? A governor doesn't have the power of a god to forbid anything he wants. If you think a God who recognizes a practice as evil and then sets up a form of government that allows it anyway is in any way appealing you're wrong.
I would say that I examined the claims of the incarnation and found them to be credible, so I give a different kind of deference to the rest of the Bible than someone who doesn't find it credible. But my belief's about the nature of God and the metaphysical don't necessarily hinge on my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. And also, Catholics don't adopt the same view of Biblical inerrancy as some protestants do.

The account of the Israelite army wiping out the Midianites is an exaggeration. It's a moral story about Israel's place in the world. They had convinced or tricked them into worshipping idols. It was only by eliminating everyone involved in the apostasy (including the Midianites) that Israel was able to regain its blessings from God. For example, the story says that not a single Israelite soldier was lost.

It's not that God is powerless to stop it, but we know that God for permits suffering to exist. Humans are given the ability to choose, and the ability to choose is the pretext for a moral life. Without it, there would be no such thing as courage or heroic acts for example.

Eta: what would have been plain and obvious to its audience, isn't plain an obvious to us who call to mind American slavery when they read about slavery. When you read "you can make them a slave", in most people's mind in 2024 that means you can enslave them through force. In light of the rest of the Bible, we can infer that's not what it means at all. If you say, "I'm going to make her my wife", it doesn't imply that you're going to force her to marry you because forced marriage wouldn't even be a sacramental reality. That's just an example of how we project a certain image onto mosaic law when it comes to slavery because it carries such a loaded connotation.
Nice reply
Reply Quote
1
Leonard H. Stringfield
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:13p, 5/2/24
This is part 3 of the series:



Fascinating stuff fellas.

Any masons here?
Reply Quote
1 edit
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 5:59p, 5/2/24
AG
I haven't backtracked anywhere. You're blinded by your hatred for Christianity. In Exodus 21, if a slave comes to his master with a wife, then they leave together. If not then he retains the services of the wife and any children begotten by them, but he can choose to stay with his wife. (Edit: this ensures the child stays with the mother. It doesn't leave with its father). And this arrangement was for a period of 7 years (temporary). Hebrew also doesn't mean Israelite. It includes non-Israelites.

This is verse 16
A kidnapper, whether he sells the person or the person is found in his possession, shall be put to death
How is this confusing you? It forbids the thing that fueled American slavery. This law on its own would have made American slavery impossible. It doesn't only forbid kidnapping. It forbids owning slaves if they were kidnapped. If found in your possession, the penalty is death.

My claim all along has been that the Bible does not condone American style slavery, and the kind of slavery being regulated in the law is not INTRINSICALLY evil, but would be wrong today.

Edit 2: you also don't want to entertain the idea that slavery in the Bible belongs to the same category as divorce, which is not condoned, but is also regulated in the law.
Reply Quote
2 edits
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:50p, 5/2/24
AG
How do you reason with moral relativists? When there are no absolutes, there is no truth.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 9:53p, 5/2/24
AG
Bob Lee said:
I haven't backtracked anywhere. You're blinded by your hatred for Christianity.
You started this thread off pretending there was no chattel slavery in Christianity and the debt slavery that very clearly applies to jews only was all that there was. No thinking person can read the verses posted above which are clear as day and conclude otherwise. You've yet to actually grapple with any single example already given, just simply try to blindly deny them based on a peculiar interpretation of a kidnapping provision that at best forces a contradiction.


Quote:

A kidnapper, whether he sells the person or the person is found in his possession, shall be put to death
How is this confusing you? It forbids the thing that fueled American slavery.
It's not confusing. It simply doesn't apply for slaves, hence why moses wasn't put to death, nor his armies. The thing that fueled American slavery is specifically allowed. This is perhaps the only time I can remember a Christian desperately arguing for a contradiction in the bible where one doesn't exist.

This is the absurdity of your position. There is literally, word for word, a rule condoning the purchase of foreign slaves. It literally word for word, allows you to own them for life, allows you to own their children for life to treat them as property. This rule, in context, is explicitly about foreign slaves and their purchase. You cannot ask for more. How is THAT confusing for you? You are using a different verse for a different context. Why would a verse not about the context of slavery supersede a verse that is explicitly, clearly, undeniably about slavery? You've yet to offer a reason.


Quote:
This law on its own would have made American slavery impossible. It doesn't only forbid kidnapping. It forbids owning slaves if they were kidnapped. If found in your possession, the penalty is death.
Sigh. This is already been done. Explain why this overrules the specific rules laid out for slavery and the purchase of slaves. Explain how it overrules the provisions allowing for the capture of slaves...

Also, your reading comprehension is poor. It doesn't forbid owning slaves that were kidnapped. It simply states a kidnapper is to be punished, weather he sells his victim or not. The exodus provision is "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession."

Deuteronomy makes the law more specific:

"Deuteronomy 24:7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you."



Quote:
My claim all along has been that the Bible does not condone American style slavery, and the kind of slavery being regulated in the law is not INTRINSICALLY evil, but would be wrong today.
Except it word for word does. It's very literally there, in posts we quoted above. Ones you've never once tried to address, simply to deny by a peculiar and contradictory application of a rule for kidnapping. I'm not going to post it again, it's been done several times. Read those posts, and tell me what the words mean.


Quote:
Edit 2: you also don't want to entertain the idea that slavery in the Bible belongs to the same category as divorce, which is not condoned, but is also regulated in the law.
Divorce is literally condoned in the bible. I think maybe you don't know what condoned means...

Also the bible explicitly says that divorce is condoned but it is not desired. It never says that about slavery.
Reply Quote
3
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 9:55p, 5/2/24
AG
dermdoc said:
How do you reason with moral relativists? When there are no absolutes, there is no truth.
Oh do please point out where I'm being unreasonable. The funny thing is that rocag and I are the only one willing to treat the words as anything other than relativistic to our own personal feelings.
Reply Quote
3
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:11p, 5/2/24
AG
I decided to quit this thread when Bob declared that "You can bequeath them (foreign slaves) to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" means slaves aren't to be treated as property and they have to be freed on the seventh year.

This is an excellent example of why I think Christians boasting about the superiority of their so called objective standard is foolish. If the words can't even be trusted to mean what they literally say the standard could be anything. Completely open to interpretation.
Reply Quote
3
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 11:15p, 5/2/24
AG
Aggrad08 said:
Bob Lee said:
I haven't backtracked anywhere. You're blinded by your hatred for Christianity.
You started this thread off pretending there was no chattel slavery in Christianity and the debt slavery that very clearly applies to jews only was all that there was. No thinking person can read the verses posted above which are clear as day and conclude otherwise. You've yet to actually grapple with any single example already given, just simply try to blindly deny them based on a peculiar interpretation of a kidnapping provision that at best forces a contradiction.


Quote:

A kidnapper, whether he sells the person or the person is found in his possession, shall be put to death
How is this confusing you? It forbids the thing that fueled American slavery.
It's not confusing. It simply doesn't apply for slaves, hence why moses wasn't put to death, nor his armies. The thing that fueled American slavery is specifically allowed. This is perhaps the only time I can remember a Christian desperately arguing for a contradiction in the bible where one doesn't exist.

This is the absurdity of your position. There is literally, word for word, a rule condoning the purchase of foreign slaves. It literally word for word, allows you to own them for life, allows you to own their children for life to treat them as property. This rule, in context, is explicitly about foreign slaves and their purchase. You cannot ask for more. How is THAT confusing for you? You are using a different verse for a different context. Why would a verse not about the context of slavery supersede a verse that is explicitly, clearly, undeniably about slavery? You've yet to offer a reason.


Quote:
This law on its own would have made American slavery impossible. It doesn't only forbid kidnapping. It forbids owning slaves if they were kidnapped. If found in your possession, the penalty is death.
Sigh. This is already been done. Explain why this overrules the specific rules laid out for slavery and the purchase of slaves. Explain how it overrules the provisions allowing for the capture of slaves...

Also, your reading comprehension is poor. It doesn't forbid owning slaves that were kidnapped. It simply states a kidnapper is to be punished, weather he sells his victim or not. The exodus provision is "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession."

Deuteronomy makes the law more specific:

"Deuteronomy 24:7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you."



Quote:
My claim all along has been that the Bible does not condone American style slavery, and the kind of slavery being regulated in the law is not INTRINSICALLY evil, but would be wrong today.
Except it word for word does. It's very literally there, in posts we quoted above. Ones you've never once tried to address, simply to deny by a peculiar and contradictory application of a rule for kidnapping. I'm not going to post it again, it's been done several times. Read those posts, and tell me what the words mean.


Quote:
Edit 2: you also don't want to entertain the idea that slavery in the Bible belongs to the same category as divorce, which is not condoned, but is also regulated in the law.
Divorce is literally condoned in the bible. I think maybe you don't know what condoned means...

Also the bible explicitly says that divorce is condoned but it is not desired. It never says that about slavery.


What I said was that Chattel slavery requires an element of kidnapping people against their will. If you want to quibble with that, then I'll grant your definition of it. It has nothing to do with my argument, and I didn't retreat from my claim. My point is that slavery was regulated for the benefit of slaves. The Israelites are reminded not to become the oppressors. And they retain their human dignity under the law.

I've addressed every argument and passage put forth. The story about the Midianites has all the earmarks of a story that reveals a truth about the Israelites' place in the world. Not a historical event. You can keep insisting Exodus 21:16 doesn't apply to slaves, but it does. Kidnapping people and selling them sounds a lot like what happened all the time as part of the transatlantic slave trade to me.

You keep equivocating purchasing slaves with American slavery. That's it. No further questions. Case closed. Except there's no reason to believe it's not an arrangement being entered into willingly. There's every reason to believe it is. Your disposition won't allow you to read it any other way.

I also addressed the jubilee and the return of the Israelites to the land promised them by God, but that foreigners didn't have land promised to them by God to return to. None of this implies that they're not willing participants, and compensated. You're projecting attributes of American slavery onto the law where it doesn't exist. There's no racial component, they aren't talked about as lesser humans, and there are laws against their cruel treatment. Their humanity is affirmed. Not denied like it was here.

I think it's that you don't like the distinction. There's a difference between condoning something and regulating it, and what the Israelites actually did, as has been mentioned by me and others. Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard, but it was not that way from the beginning. There's no contradiction. The standard is and always has been that it's not condoned. I gave the example of a governor signing an allowance for abortion, but placing constraints around its practice. He doesn't approve of it. He just permits it given the circumstances.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.