The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery

  
By:  john-russell  •  2 months ago  •  435 comments

The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery

Shall we go to the horses mouth?

George Mc Duffie was the sitting governor of South Carolina when he wrote this message to the state legislature in 1835.

(excerpts)

For the institution of domestic slavery we hold ourselves responsible only to God, and it is utterly incompatible with the dignity and the safety of the State, to permit any foreign authority to question our right to maintain it. It may nevertheless be appropriate, as a voluntary token of our respect for the opinions of our confederate brethren, to present some views to their consideration on this subject, calculated to disallows their minds of false opinions and pernicious prejudices.

No human institution, in my opinion, is more manifestly consistent with the will of God, than domestic slavery, and no one of his ordinances is written in more legible characters than that which consigns the African race to this condition, as more conducive to their own happiness, than any other of which they are susceptible. Whether we consult the sacred Scriptures, or the lights of nature and reason, we shall find these truths as abundantly apparent, as if written with a sunbeam in the heavens. Under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations of our religion, domestic slavery existed with the unequivocal sanction of its prophets, its apostles and finally its great Author. The patriarchs themselves, those chosen instruments of God, were slave-holders. In fact the divine sanction of this institution is so plainly written that "he who runs may read" it, and those over-righteous pretenders and Pharisees, who affect to be scandalized by its existence among us, would do well to inquire how much more nearly they walk in the ways of Godliness, than did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That the African negro is destined by Providence to occupy this condition of servile dependence, is not less manifest. It is marked on the face, stamped on the skin, and evinced by the intellectual inferiority and natural improvidence of this race. They have all the qualities that fit them for slaves, and not one of those that would fit them to be freemen. They are utterly unqualified not only for rational freedom, but for self-government of any kind. They are, in all respects, physical, moral, and political, inferior to millions of the human race, who have for consecutive ages, dragged out a wretched existence under a grinding political despotism, and who are doomed to this hopeless condition by the very qualities which unfit them for a better. It is utterly astonishing that any enlightened American, after contemplating all the manifold forms in which even the white race of mankind are doomed to slavery and oppression, should suppose it possible to reclaim the African race from their destiny. The capacity to enjoy freedom is an attribute not to be communicated by human power. It is an endowment of God, and one of the rarest which it has pleased his inscrutable wisdom to bestow upon the nations of the earth. It is conferred as the reward of merit, and only upon those who are qualified to enjoy it. Until the "Ethiopian can change his skin," it will be in vain to attempt, by any human power, to make freemen of those whom God has doomed to be slaves, by all their attributes.

Let not, therefore, the misguided and designing intermeddlers who seek to destroy our peace, imagine that they are serving the cause of God by practically arraigning the decrees of his Providence. Indeed it would scarcely excite surprise, if with the impious audacity of those who projected the tower of Babel, they should attempt to scale the battlements of Heaven, and remonstrate with the God of wisdom for having put the mark of Cain and tile curse of Ham upon the African race, instead of the European.

If the benevolent friends of the black race would compare the condition of that portion of them which we hold in servitude, with that which still remains in Africa totally unblessed by the lights of civilization or Christianity, and groaning under a savage despotism, as utterly destitute of hope as of happiness, they would be able to form some tolerable estimate, of what our blacks have lost by slavery in America, and what they have gained by freedom in Africa. Greatly as their condition has been improved, by their subjection to an enlightened and Christian people, (the only mode under heaven by which it could have been accomplished,) they are yet wholly unprepared for any thing like a rational system of self-government. Emancipation would be a positive curse, depriving them of a guardianship essential to their happiness, and they may well say in the language of the Spanish proverb, "Save us from our friends and we will take care of our enemies." If emancipated, where would they live and what would be their condition? The idea of their remaining among us is utterly visionary. Amalgamation is abhorent to every sentiment of nature; and if they remain as a separate caste, whether endowed with equal privileges or not, they will become our masters or we must resume tile mastery over them. This state of political amalgamation and conflict, which the Abolitionists evidently aim to produce, would be the most horrible condition imaginable, and would furnish Dante or Milton with the type for another chapter illustrating the horrors of the infernal regions. The only disposition, therefore, that could be made of our emancipated slaves would be their transportation to Africa, to exterminate tile natives or be exterminated by them; contingencies, either of which may well serve to illustrate the wisdom, if not the philanthropy of these superserviceable madmen, who in the name of humanity would desolate the fairest region of the earth and destroy the most perfect system of social and political happiness, that ever has existed.

It is perfectly evident that the destiny of the Negro race its, either the worst possible form of political slavery, or else domestic servitude as it exists in the slave-holding States. The advantage of domestic slavery over the most favorable condition of political slavery, does not admit of a question. It is the obvious interest of the master, not less than his duty, to provide comfortable food and clothing for his slaves; and whatever false and exaggerated stories may be propagated by mercenary travellers, who make a trade of exchanging calumny for hospitality, the peasantry and operatives of no country in the world are better provided for, in these respects, than the slaves of our country. In the single empire of Great Britain, the most free and enlightened nation in Europe, there are more wretched paupers and half starving operatives, than there are Negro slaves in the United States. In all respects, the comforts of our slaves are greatly superior to those of the English operatives, or the Irish and continental peasantry, to say nothing of the millions of paupers crowded together in those loathsome receptacles of starving humanity, the public poor-houses. Besides the hardships of incessant toil, too much almost for human nature to endure, and the sufferings of actual want, driving them almost to despair, these miserable creatures are perpetually annoyed by the most distressing cares for the future condition of themselves and their children.

From this excess of labor, this actual want, and these distressing cares, our slaves are entirely exempted. They habitually labor from two to four hours a day less than the operatives in other countries, and it has been truly remarked, by some writer, that a negro cannot be made to injure himself by excessive labor. It may be safely affirmed that they eat as much wholesome and substantial food in one day, as English operatives or Irish peasants eat in two. And as it regards concern for the future, their condition may well be envied even by their masters. There is not upon the face of the earth, any class of people, high or low, so perfectly free from c are and anxiety. They know that their masters will provide for them, under all circumstances, and that in the extremity of old age, instead of being driven to beggary or to seek public charity in a poor-house, they will be comfortably accommodated and kindly treated among their relatives and associates. Cato, the elder, has been regarded as a model of Roman virtue, and yet he is said to have sold his superannuated slaves to avoid the expense of maintaining them. The citizens of this State may not aspire to rival the virtue of the Romans, but it may be safely affirmed, that they would doom to execration the master who should imitate the inhuman example of the Roman paragon. The government of our slaves is strictly patriarchal, and produces those mutual feelings of kindness which result from a constant interchange of good offices, and which can only exist in a system of domestic or patriarchal slavery. They are entirely unknown either in a state of political slavery, or in that form of domestic servitude which exists in all other communities.

In a word, our slaves are cheerful, contented and happy, much beyond tile general condition of the human race, except where those foreign intruders and fatal ministers of mischief, the emancipationists, like their arch-prototype in the Garden of Eden, and actuated by no less envy, have tempted them to aspire above the condition to which they have been assigned in the order of Providence.

 

 

Domestic slavery, therefore, instead of being a political evil, is the corner-stone of our republican edifice. No patriot who justly estimates our privileges will tolerate the idea of emancipation, at any period, however remote, or on any conditions of pecuniary advantage, however favorable. 1 would as soon open a negotiation for selling the liberty of the State at once, as for making any stipulations for the ultimate emancipation of our slaves. So deep is my conviction on this subject, that if I were doomed to die immediately after recording these sentiments, I could say in all sincerity and under all the sanctions of Christianity and patriotism, "God forbid that my descendants, in the remotest generations, should live in any other than a community having the institution of domestic slavery, as it existed among the patriarchs of the primitive Church and in all the free states of antiquity."

 

Article is Locked by Moderator

Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago
The capacity to enjoy freedom is an attribute not to be communicated by human power. It is an endowment of God, and one of the rarest which it has pleased his inscrutable wisdom to bestow upon the nations of the earth. It is conferred as the reward of merit, and only upon those who are qualified to enjoy it. Until the "Ethiopian can change his skin," it will be in vain to attempt, by any human power, to make freemen of those whom God has doomed to be slaves, by all their attributes.
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Wow...so just because one is black, one is doomed to slavery....

......I have no words....

 
 
 
CB
1.1.1  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 months ago

I finished my popcorn early!

Dear TG, so we see that graceful and pleasant wings of "high soaring rhetoric" have a biting and twisting serrated blade of an ugly twin, "high diabolic rhetoric"! This governor, this man, saw what came to belong to him and those for whom he served as nothing to be reasoned with or over.

Nevermind, that Christ and Paul who came later had discussed, Christian liberty as a thing to be considered. That, if even a man was to be in chains as part of some government norm—there was no room in the faith or Christian home for "viciousness."

Governor McDuffie strikes me as a propagandist and opportunist, who, because of some "proofs" in the Old Testament, a closed contract for modern believers, USED GOD, to ignore the advancing tide of slave freedom which was spreading from across the seas.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.1    2 months ago

Yes, obviously, McDuffie exploited the Bible to support his slavery agenda.    I do not think anyone is confused about that.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.3  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Slavery has been a nearly universally practiced throughout history (Particluarly among African Americans themselves) and slavery still continues to this day in other parts of the world, but it is not at the behest of Christianity. .

So what would be the underlying reason someone would post such an article?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

I am pretty sure that George McDuffie, the governor of South Carolina, was a Christian in good standing.

How do you explain this?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago
I am pretty sure that George McDuffie, the governor of South Carolina, was a Christian in good standing.

How do you explain this?

I am pretty sure that McDuffie was not a good Christian. He was an "Old Testamentarian". Many self-styled Christians today are in fact Old Testamentarians: they ignore Christ's core message of love. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1    2 months ago
they ignore Christ's core message of love.

Today's Christians do not model their lives after Christ's teachings, instead they model his teachings after the lives they want to live.  Religion, today, is now used to justify their decisions instead guiding them to those decisions.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago

I note that McDuffie does not actually give a Biblical argument for his views. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2    2 months ago

Mc Duffie and other intellectual slaveowners had a dilemma. The Enlightenment and the impulses of the recently born United States of America and the French Revolution argued for universal human equality. But the southern slaveowners didnt want to give up their moneymakers, and their way of life, so they needed to devise a rationale that would answer the objections to slavery posed by the Enlightenment events. The rationale became two fold - God approved of slavery, was one, and the other was that Negroes were not fully human and so didnt fall under the maxims about freedom and liberty developed by the Enlightenment thinkers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2    2 months ago

The guy was a real piece of work and much of what he writes (such as suggesting Africans were deemed to be slaves by the Bible) is unsupported, but this comment ...

Under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations of our religion, domestic slavery existed with the unequivocal sanction of its prophets, its apostles and finally its great Author. 

... (unfortunately for history) has legs.

Slavery was in abundance well before the writing of the Bible (both OT and NT) and for centuries thereafter.   No way could this practice be 'missed'.   Even if the Bible did not contain rules for proper enslavement (although it does), the lack of divine moral guidance (i.e. never condemning as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property) supports the bigot's claim.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 months ago
God approved of slavery

To me, I would say that God permitted slavery with certain rules.   But I think it is quite fair to note that God shows no indication that He disapproves of owning another human being as property.


As an aside, even in the 10 commandments we see tacit approval of owning people as property:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.

One clearly can interpret this in various ways (e.g. servant = employee), but given the balance of the OT and the role of women, the prevalence of slavery (servants) and the fact that people are listed along with ox, ass and anything else that is [owned by] your neighbor, it is difficult to NOT interpret this commandment as 'do not covet thy neighbor's property' with human beings listed as examples.    

And if this were the only part of the Bible that made such mention, it would be almost meaningless.   One could dismiss the property interpretation and offer a gentler meaning such as 'employee' or indentured servant.   But, point of fact, the Bible itself drives the 'people as property' interpretation.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.2    2 months ago
The guy was a real piece of work and much of what he writes (such as suggesting Africans were deemed to be slaves by the Bible) is unsupported, but this comment ...
Under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations of our religion, domestic slavery existed with the unequivocal sanction of its prophets, its apostles and finally its great Author. 
... (unfortunately for history) has legs.

Concerning McDuffie's argument, not really. Especially when one takes into account that McDuffie's slavery was unequivocally not sanctioned by the Bible. Southern slave owners neither acquired slaves by Biblical means nor treated them Biblically. Essentially, his argument simply rests on slaves being in the Bible. Had McDuffie actually been concerned with Biblical slavery he would have put to death all slave owners for being in possession of kidnapping victims, all slaves who had been injured or mutilated by slave owners would have been freed, slave owners punished for rape and so on. Instead, southern slave holders seemed to have referenced the Bible for the sole purpose of finding what was prohibited and then doing exactly that. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.4    2 months ago
Concerning McDuffie's argument, not really.

My comment was about the owning of other people as property.   That is most definitely supported by the Bible.

Of course the specifics of USA slave trade and treatment are not in the Bible.   But condoning the owning of people as property is: the Bible condones the owning of human beings as property.  That was my point.


But let us consider your focus on letter-by-letter following of scripture.  If USA slave owners had treated their slaves exactly according to the OT biblical rules, would you consider their owning and treatment of slaves to be moral?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.6  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    2 months ago
My comment was about the owning of other people as property. That is most definitely supported by the Bible.

My comment was about McDuffie. Not my fault if yours wasn't. 

But let us consider your focus on letter-by-letter following of scripture. 

What I have said isn't a letter-by-letter focus on following the scripture. That's more your department. For instance, your incessant insistence that God says slave owners have His permission to beat their slave owners to within an inch of their lives as long as they don't die. You can only arrive at this by excluding all other relevant concerns and only look at the statement without context. 

If USA slave owners had treated their slaves exactly according to the OT biblical rules, would you consider their owning and treatment of slaves to be moral?

Would their enslavement of black people been morally okay if they had treated them Biblically? That question can't be asked because their having black people as slaves wouldn't have occurred. Slavery in the south was established through the kidnapping of people. It would not be possible to have slavery according to Biblical rules when it was founded on kidnapping. That is, whatever is in your mind concerning this question, it would probably have few black people as slaves. Most of them would have been whites who sold themselves into something like indentured servitude. 

As for the morality of it, you appear to think there is only one kind of slavery. Chattel. That would never be moral in my understanding. Other kinds? Depends on the conditions extant at the time. Further, "owning" concerning Biblical rules doesn't mean to you what it means to me. You appear to mean that they own in such a manner that they could do whatever they wished with their slave. That they were property. That' wasn't true and is largely the point behind the restrictions behind what God said they could and could not do. All an owner was entitled to was their labor and that labor couldn't be abusive. They didn't own the slave as personal property. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.6    2 months ago
My comment was about McDuffie. Not my fault if yours wasn't. 

Your fault is to (purposely) not recognize that McDuffie is the context given I quoted him and my comment was on the quote.   

McDuffie uses the Bible to justify owning human beings as property.   And, in that, his argument is unfortunately supported.  Here is what I wrote on that:

TiG @2.2.2 - Slavery was in abundance well before the writing of the Bible (both OT and NT) and for centuries thereafter.   No way could this practice be 'missed'.   Even if the Bible did not contain rules for proper enslavement (although it does), the lack of divine moral guidance (i.e. never condemning as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property) supports the bigot's claim.

Does the Bible condone the owning of human beings as property?   If so, then it is no surprise that the McDuffie's of the world used it to prop up their agendas.  If not, then someone needs to somehow explain away the many passages in the Bible which define rules for proper enslavement.

What I have said isn't a letter-by-letter focus on following the scripture.

First you note that McDuffie's world did not enslave exactly as stated in the Bible.  (As if that was a necessary condition.)  So, playing along, I asked you to weigh in on slavery if the USA had directly followed the rules in the Bible.   Now you complain that you are not dealing with a letter-by-letter focus on scripture.  jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

For instance, your incessant insistence that God says slave owners have His permission to beat their slave owners to within an inch of their lives as long as they don't die. You can only arrive at this by excluding all other relevant concerns and only look at the statement without context. 

The cliche 'you are taking it out of context' platitude.  Well, I quoted the scripture:

Exodus 21:20-21 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

The scripture is quite clear.   One has to play mental games to not see that God deems the slave to be the property of the master.  The passage also does not punish the master unless the slave dies within a few days.   So what level of beating does this allow?   

The immediate context for this passage is Exodus 21.   It is a list of rules that God has made.   What context do you include that materially changes the meaning of this passage?   Are you going to claim that the master can beat his slave to a pulp but must ensure that the slave does not lose a tooth or an eye in the beating?   Explain the context that shows God is not sanctioning brutal treatment of human beings that are owned by other human beings.   Do more than simply claim 'out of context'.   Your argument in the past was along the lines of:  'well, God would never sanction such activity' with a suggestion that we just ignore passages like this.

Would their enslavement of black people been morally okay if they had treated them Biblically? That question can't be asked because their having black people as slaves wouldn't have occurred.

Yeah, here you go dodging the question.   Okay Drakk.

You appear to mean that they own in such a manner that they could do whatever they wished with their slave. That they were property. That' wasn't true and is largely the point behind the restrictions behind what God said they could and could not do. All an owner was entitled to was their labor and that labor couldn't be abusive. They didn't own the slave as personal property. 

Really?   Have you read the Bible lately?   Here is one of the most gentle passages on slavery in the OT - owning a fellow Hebrew:

Deuteronomy 15:12-18 12 “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold[a] to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your wine press. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. 16 But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, 17 then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave[b]forever. And to your female slave[c] you shall do the same. 18 It shall not seem hard to you when you let him go free from you, for at half the cost of a hired worker he has served you six years. So the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do.

Right off the bat, the passage starts off noting that Hebrew slaves are bought and sold.   Another 'out of context' situation?    'Sold' does not really mean a sales transaction?    

Then we get into the gentle Hebrew part.  But then we see that even fellow Hebrews can be made into lifelong slaves.   If a Hebrew slave was given a wife by his master, he must leave his wife (and children) at the end of his 6 years.   His wife and children remain the property of the master.   To stay with his family, the Hebrew man must declare his loyalty to his former master and give up his freedom for life.   His master will mark his ear with an awl and the deal is done.   A fellow Hebrew!

Note also how this passage makes a distinction between slavery and employment (hired worker).

Got plenty of passages from the Bible.   No doubt they are all taken out of context ... the words cannot be read plainly ... nothing is what it seems ... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.   


As I mentioned earlier, the Bible (unfortunately for history) made it very easy for slave masters to justify their exploitation.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.8  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.7    2 months ago
McDuffie uses the Bible to justify owning human beings as property.   And, in that, his argument is unfortunately supported.

Uh, no. Not actually. Just in the way you try to portray it in order to support your point. As I said, the only basis that McDuffie has for his position is that slavery was practiced in the Bible.  There is certainly no justification for the slavery practiced by him and other slave owners of that period. 

Does the Bible condone the owning of human beings as property?

No. 

If so, then it is no surprise that the McDuffie's of the world used it to prop up their agendas. If not, then someone needs to somehow explain away the many passages in the Bible which define rules for proper enslavement.

Of course you would put it in such terms. As if God wanted there to be slaves. The truth is, all cultures of that time and place not only practiced slavery, they were of such a mind that it was just a part of the natural order. It was a right and proper thing. The idea that slavery was wrong would not have occurred to very many people, if any at all. What God did, in my view, was take one such culture and explain to them that slaves were people, too. That they were not mere property but individuals whom He cared about. So, rather than make rules "for proper enslavement" as you put it, He actually said, to paraphrase, you may have slaves but they have rights and I forbid you go beyond these lines I have drawn. 

First you note that McDuffie's world did not enslave exactly as stated in the Bible. (As if that was a necessary condition.) So, playing along, I asked you to weigh in on slavery if the USA had directly followed the rules in the Bible. Now you complain that you are not dealing with a letter-by-letter focus on scripture.

No, what I stated was that if McDuffie wanted to use the Bible, and God's authority for slavery, then he had already failed miserably and I explained why. What you are actually doing is taking McDuffie's side in this and just claiming that because there were slaves in the Bible then McDuffie was justified in his views on that fact alone. 

The scripture is quite clear. One has to play mental games to not see that God deems the slave to be the property of the master. The passage also does not punish the master unless the slave dies within a few days. So what level of beating does this allow?

You prove my point, here. You are insisting that I argue based solely on the contents of this verse and nothing else. Is it not you, then, who is doing the letter by letter analysis? 

The immediate context for this passage is Exodus 21. It is a list of rules that God has made. What context do you include that materially changes the meaning of this passage? Are you going to claim that the master can beat his slave to a pulp but must ensure that the slave does not lose a tooth or an eye in the beating? Explain the context that shows God is not sanctioning brutal treatment of human beings that are owned by other human beings. Do more than simply claim 'out of context'. Your argument in the past was along the lines of: 'well, God would never sanction such activity' with a suggestion that we just ignore passages like this.

Complete and utter crap. I never said anything even remotely like what is highlighted in blue. The context I would include is just what you listed. Exodus 21. What is it do you think God is talking about here??? Does it not seem to you that God is talking about personal accountability in how you treat others? Again, it is you who looks at the letter of the law and not what is behind it. What you do is read a passage and in a legalistic manner, say it doesn't say anything about cutting off a toe so that must be okay.  What you fail to do is explain how God can say all that he does about being careful in how you treat others except that it's okay to beat a slave within an inch of his life. That doesn't even make sense. Your problem is that you read these things as laws when they're actually examples concerning the law. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth doesn't mean God only cares about eyes and teeth. Go ahead and break his arm, but leave the eyes and teeth alone? Seriously? And if you can comprehend that much, why would you insist that God is telling us that it's okay to nearly beat your slave to death? Oh, yeah. Because you don't read it in context. You only read it letter by letter in isolation. 

Yeah, here you go dodging the question. Okay Drakk.

No, addressing my original point and what this post is about. McDuffie incorrectly uses the Bible as justification for slavery. Your point remains the same as McDuffie's. That because it was allowed in the Bible then he was justified in using it as well. 

Really? Have you read the Bible lately? Here is one of the most gentle passages on slavery in the OT - owning a fellow Hebrew:
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 12 “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold[a] to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your wine press. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. 16 But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, 17 then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave[b]forever. And to your female slave[c] you shall do the same. 18 It shall not seem hard to you when you let him go free from you, for at half the cost of a hired worker he has served you six years. So the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do.

Interesting that you chose this verse. Tell me. If the owner of the slave really owned the slave and could do whatever he wished with him, how could the slave owner be made to do any of this? And going back to Exodus 21, how is it that the slave owner cannot beat the slave to death, maim him or whatever else he may want to do? That doesn't sound like he really owns the slave, does it? More like he gets the labor from the slave for a period of time and then must compensate him at the end. 

Right off the bat, the passage starts off noting that Hebrew slaves are bought and sold.

No, not out of context. What is actually out of context is your use of the word "slavery". You seem to feel it always means "chattel" slavery, which was not the case. Chattel slaves had no rights or protections. 

Then we get into the gentle Hebrew part. But then we see that even fellow Hebrews can be made into lifelong slaves. If a Hebrew slave was given a wife by his master, he must leave his wife (and children) at the end of his 6 years. His wife and children remain the property of the master. To stay with his family, the Hebrew man must declare his loyalty to his former master and give up his freedom for life. His master will mark his ear with an awl and the deal is done. A fellow Hebrew!

As I understand it, this was more like changing families than anything else. Somewhat similar to a daughter entering a new family through marriage. But regardless, what do you think happened with such a Hebrew who did such a thing? What is in your imagination? What do you think his "slavery" was like? Do you not recall it says "16 But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you...". It doesn't say anything about a hostage situation. 

As I mentioned earlier, the Bible (unfortunately for history) made it very easy for slave masters to justify their exploitation.

Couldn't agree more. Totally reasonable for those nasty slave owners to make up rules that limits the time they could keep slaves, that they had to be reimbursed at the end, limited what they could and couldn't do with slaves and all that. Very clever on their part. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.8    2 months ago
TiG @2.2.7McDuffie uses the Bible to justify owning human beings as property.   And, in that, his argument is unfortunately supported.
Drakk @2.2.8:  Uh, no. Not actually. Just in the way you try to portray it in order to support your point.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

You actually do not see that McDuffie uses the Bible to justify owning human beings as property??   Come on Drakk, why make such a ridiculous claim?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.10  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.9    2 months ago
You actually do not see that McDuffie uses the Bible to justify owning human beings as property?? 

Yes, I see that McDuffie claims that the Bible justifies his views concerning slavery. That doesn't mean that it actually does. You get that, right?

I guess the problem we have here is the use of the word "justify". In order to justify his posiition, McDuffie has to actually make a case other than, "Well, they had them in the Bible."

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.8    2 months ago
Of course you would put it in such terms. As if God wanted there to be slaves.

God get what He wants.   God is the designer, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, etc.

The truth is, all cultures of that time and place not only practiced slavery, they were of such a mind that it was just a part of the natural order. It was a right and proper thing.

Correct.   I have stated this myself.  This is why the Bible does not condemn slavery - because the writers of the Bible saw nothing wrong with slavery.  They, IMO, had no divine guidance ... they were just men pretending to be God.   

The idea that slavery was wrong would not have occurred to very many people, if any at all.

What makes you think that I disagree with this?   

What God did, in my view, was take one such culture and explain to them that slaves were people, too. That they were not mere property but individuals whom He cared about. So, rather than make rules "for proper enslavement" as you put it, He actually said, to paraphrase, you may have slaves but they have rights and I forbid you go beyond these lines I have drawn. 

That, Drakk, is making rules for proper enslavement.   You can claim God deemed them 'not mere property' but He is still deeming them property.  And this is the treatment for his chosen people.   All the enslavement that ensued during and up until present time could have been stopped by God but it was not.   The Bible continues today with a message of condoning the owning of human beings as property.

What you are actually doing is taking McDuffie's side in this and just claiming that because there were slaves in the Bible then McDuffie was justified in his views on that fact alone. 

I wish you would read what I write instead of inventing this nonsense.  I pointed out that the Bible condones slavery and thus the McDuffies of history could easily exploit the Bible to justify their acts.  

You prove my point, here. You are insisting that I argue based solely on the contents of this verse and nothing else. Is it not you, then, who is doing the letter by letter analysis? 

What you call 'letter by letter' analysis is reading the words of scripture.   If you have a context that varies the meaning then make your case.  Simply claiming 'out of context' or 'letter by letter' is not a convincing argument.   What you want, IMO, is for people to simply ignore everything in the Bible that you dislike.   

Complete and utter crap. I never said anything even remotely like what is highlighted in blue.

Okay,  I will take you at your word.   Let's see what your story is now.

The context I would include is just what you listed. Exodus 21. What is it do you think God is talking about here??? Does it not seem to you that God is talking about personal accountability in how you treat others?

I am waiting for you to provide the contextual explanation which shows the words as written are not as they seem.   Is that coming?

Again, it is you who looks at the letter of the law and not what is behind it. What you do is read a passage and in a legalistic manner, say it doesn't say anything about cutting off a toe so that must be okay. 

You are again trying to make this personal when you should be explaining the context.   Waiting for that contextual explanation.

What you fail to do is explain how God can say all that he does about being careful in how you treat others except that it's okay to beat a slave within an inch of his life.

The contextual explanation does not seem forthcoming.   You are now asking me to yet again explain a single passage.   Why?   This is your time to explain the passage in context.   Why are you all over the map?

That doesn't even make sense. Your problem is that you read these things as laws when they're actually examples concerning the law.

Am I the contextual explanation?   Still obsessing on me and not providing any explanation.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth doesn't mean God only cares about eyes and teeth.

Is this your contextual explanation?   You just jumped into the New Testament and are now completely outside of the context of human as property?

Go ahead and break his arm, but leave the eyes and teeth alone? Seriously? And if you can comprehend that much, why would you insist that God is telling us that it's okay to nearly beat your slave to death? Oh, yeah. Because you don't read it in context. You only read it letter by letter in isolation. 

This is it?   This is your grand contextual explanation?   So one verse notes that damaging the eye of a slave means the slave must be set free and you, for some odd reason, think that that verse means that no violence shall be done to slaves??   Seems to me you are reading your passage letter by letter and accepting it because it is less harsh than other passages in the list.


Drakk, when 'God' talks about beating a slave with a rod, what do you think that means?   Spanking him/her?    If that were the case, then do you think it was a common practice for slaves to die within a few days after getting spanked?   

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Here is what I suggest:

Start with the verses as written and you will have God telling the master that he can beat the crap out of his slaves because they are the master's property.   But, God imposes some rules:

  1. If the slave dies after beating the crap out of him/her then you went too far in the beating and you will be punished
  2. If you ruin the slaves eye then you must set him/her free
  3. If you knock out a slave's tooth then you must set him/her free

Now interpret away.   Generalize 2 and 3 to 'do not do any permanent physical harm to the slave'.   Combine that into a single rule for properly beating slaves and we have:

Beat the crap out of your slave if you wish because the slave is your property.   However, should your beatings result in any permanent physical damage, you must let your slave go free.   And if you wind up killing your property as a result of your beatings then you have gone too far and will answer to me.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.12  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.11    2 months ago
Now interpret away.

There is no point. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.10    2 months ago
Yes, I see that McDuffie claims that the Bible justifies his views concerning slavery. That doesn't mean that it actually does. You get that, right?

I get that you claim the Bible does not provide justification for slavery.

I also get that your claim requires you to totally change the meaning of words in scripture.

I guess the problem we have here is the use of the word "justify". In order to justify his posiition, McDuffie has to actually make a case other than, "Well, they had them in the Bible."

You know, I do not think the problem is subtle semantics.   This is pretty basic stuff.   You have a book that many people consider to be divine.   That book clearly condones slavery.   It was written when owning human beings as property was commonplace but never does God -the supreme entity and arbiter of objective morality- condemn the owning of a human being as property.   Instead, God made rules for proper enslavement and even refers to the slaves as property of the master - to be bought and sold and passed as inheritance.

It simply is not credible for you to claim that the Bible does not give support to a slaver claiming slavery is biblically allowed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.12    2 months ago
There is no point. 

I agree.   You just presented your best argument and it amounted to nothing but hand-waving.   But I see no other way anyone could even attempt to argue that the Bible does not condone slavery except to try to employ smoke and mirrors.   

This is not one passage that is 'read out of context'; the topic of slavery occurs often in the Bible (especially the OT) and a net takeaway of ...

God says it is allowable to own another human being as property

... is undeniable.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    2 months ago
My comment was about the owning of other people as property.   That is most definitely supported by the Bible

I think most people would agree that owning other people as property (slaves) is immoral. Since the bible supports such a thing and does not condemn or prohibit it, then one must conclude that if the bible is the literal word of god, then god is ok with slavery and is therefore immoral himself. If the bible is not the literal word of god, then that means the bible was written by ancient men which simply reflected the times they lived in. Either way, god (assuming there is one, which is unlikely) allowed and did not prohibit slavery, which makes god immoral.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.15    2 months ago

And of course we can understand why a religious person presumes that there must be something wrong with your logic.   The conclusion is simply unacceptable - it violates the entire belief.

God, as defined by the Bible, condones the immoral act of owning a human being as property.   Yet this same God weighs in on minutia such as the rules for making a loan to a poor man.   It is thus a strained argument to suggest that God did not weigh in on the immorality of slavery because He did not want to interfere.   Further, anyone with biblical knowledge cannot deny that God interfered routinely in the OT world.

This leads to the inevitable conclusion that God considered the owning of human beings as property to be moral.

Now, as you note, if the God character of the Bible is simply nothing more than a character in a book, it stands to reason that God would behave like a more powerful version of the ancient writers.   He would then, of course, find nothing odd about human slavery since -after all- that is all these men ever knew.   Their history was based on slavery with no suggestion that would ever change.

If the God of the Bible is simply a character in a book, the book itself makes sense - the product of ancient men.   It is when one inserts the premise that this character actually exists that the logic breaks down.   Now instead of a book that reads like it was written by the human authors, we have the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent supreme entity and arbiter of objective morality failing to instruct His creations on a basic idea of human morality.   

Worse still, by condoning slavery generations of people (for thousands of years) could turn to the Bible and argue that God is okay with slavery.   The implications of that seem staggering.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.17  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.16    2 months ago
And of course we can understand why a religious person presumes that there must be something wrong with your logic.   The conclusion is simply unacceptable - it violates the entire belief.

Indeed. But then, if one goes by belief, it is often at the expense and/or exclusion of logic.

Further, anyone with biblical knowledge cannot deny that God interfered routinely in the OT world.

Indeed. But not when it came to slavery apparently.

This leads to the inevitable conclusion that God considered the owning of human beings as property to be moral.

Therefore, anyone who adheres to such a god or religious based standards must themselves conclude slavery is moral. They cannot logically declare slavery is immoral without contradicting their own source of belief.

it stands to reason that God would behave like a more powerful version of the ancient writers.

Or it stands to reason a god character would support or prohibit the things the writers themselves had interests in.

we have the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent supreme entity and arbiter of objective morality failing to instruct His creations on a basic idea of human morality.

So either god overlooked something or made a mistake-both logically impossible for a god with the attributes you describe (and most would probably agree are the qualities of said god), and if said god is the "objective" arbiter of morality, then it stands such a believer must conclude that slavery is moral because god says or thinks it is. It goes without saying there is a problem with that kind of mentality.

The implications of that seem staggering.

Indeed.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.18  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.17    2 months ago
So either god overlooked something or made a mistake...

Or... you are applying criteria that are anachronistic to the point of intellectual error.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.18    2 months ago

For you to suggest that, you would have to assume Gordy believes the God of the Bible to be real — to be more than merely a character in an ancient book.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.19    2 months ago

Not at all. One can apply anachronistic criteria to fictional personages. That's something that any fan of historical fiction abhors.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.21  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.18    2 months ago
Or... you are applying criteria that are anachronistic to the point of intellectual error.

No, I am applying logic: either god was ok with slavery or he wasn't. Did god instruct his creations regarding morality or not?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.20    2 months ago

Then my comment correlates well with Gordy's so I will simply defer to it:  @2.2.21

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.21    2 months ago

I am applying logic:

Either Gordy has stopped beating his wife or he has not.

Which is it, Gordy???   jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.23    2 months ago

Correction:  Gordy is beating his wife or he is not.

The 'stopped' condition adds a spurious dimension to a binary condition.   It thus does not match the question Gordy posed.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.25  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.24    2 months ago

That's not my point. Gordy poses a question that is not intrinsically valid. He asks a question that ignores the context.

The context imposes an answer something like, "Of course He was OK with it," but then Gory goes on with

Did god instruct his creations regarding morality or not?

   ... as though that question naturally followed the other, and as though "morality" is intemporal.

There's too much 21st Century in that post...

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.26  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.25    2 months ago
That's not my point. Gordy poses a question that is not intrinsically valid. He asks a question that ignores the context.

The context is the justification for slavery and moral implications. We know slavery existed in biblical times and biblical writers addressed the condition of slavery. Some people think the bible is the literal word of god. As I said, if the bible is the literal word of god, then god is ok with slavery and is therefore immoral himself. If the bible is just stories written by ancient men (who obviously were ok with slavery), the it stands to reason god overlooked that particular issue and did not make corrections (showing a degree of fallibility not normally ascribed to god) or  was otherwise ok with biblical contents, including slavery. 

as though that question naturally followed the other, and as though "morality" is intemporal.

If god is the objective arbiter of morality, then morality cannot change. Therefore, according to god and/or the bible, slavery is moral.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.27  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.15    2 months ago
Since the bible supports such a thing and does not condemn or prohibit it, then one must conclude that if the bible is the literal word of god, then god is ok with slavery and is therefore immoral himself

Untrue because this isn't the only conclusion that can be drawn. It is also possible that God is not okay with slavery but had a perfectly moral reason for not prohibiting it, putting restrictions on it instead. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.28  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.26    2 months ago
The context is the justification...

May I suggest "explanation", rather than "justification"? I agree with the rest of that paragraph.

If god is the objective arbiter of morality, then morality cannot change. Therefore, according to god and/or the bible, slavery is moral.

The logic of that sentence is irrefutable, on the reasonable condition that God doesn't change opinions too often.

Much more critical is the explicit condition "If god is the objective arbiter of morality". Today we know the universe contains trillions of stars. If even a small percentage have sophisticated life, then it's pretty hard to imagine a God defining morality for all of them... 

More importantly, theologically, would be the elimination of Free Will.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.27    2 months ago
It is also possible that God is not okay with slavery but had a perfectly moral reason for not prohibiting it, putting restrictions on it instead. 

By never telling His people that He was not okay with slavery, slavery continued sans divine guidance for thousands of years hence.   Imagine the impact on history if the Bible included God's position that slavery is not okay even though it was tolerated.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.28    2 months ago
Much more critical is the explicit condition "If god is the objective arbiter of morality". Today we know the universe contains trillions of stars. If even a small percentage have sophisticated life, then it's pretty hard to imagine a God defining morality for all of them... 

Why is that hard to imagine?   If one can imagine a supreme entity who created the (more like quintillions of) stars it seems easy to imagine the entity having a universal objective morality that applies to all lifeforms.   And if the entity wanted to customize a relative morality for each type of lifeform then why is that a problem?   

More importantly, theologically, would be the elimination of Free Will.

Free will cannot exist if it is possible to know the future.   That is, if the future is determined then free will is at best an illusion.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.31  Split Personality  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.27    2 months ago
It is also possible that God is not okay with slavery but had a perfectly moral reason for not prohibiting it, putting restrictions on it instead. 

Sort of like how "God" permits murder in his name during the last 10,000 years of recorded human wars?

Sort of like the same reasons "God" permits certain species, like lions to kill off all the male lions of the previous dominant male.......

They don't enslave them, they kill them.

Like "God" allows Orcas to kill the calves of Sperm whales or blue whales for sport? Then for weeks the whales weep & mourn.

It's very  difficult for me to revere life as something that "God" deemed a precious gift to humanity alone

when we are surrounded by countless forms of life and shit on them every day, for dominance, greed, profit, food,etc.

People like chicken, they like chicken eggs, they prefer infertile chicken eggs, so what happens to all of the

male baby chicks and eggs identified as male by a quick blood/DNA test at a chicken egg plant that only needs female chicken eggs/egg  layers?

Well that just depends on how cruel "God's people" are to "God's" other creations....

https://youtu.be/kbNriWcc9CA?list=PLtc3iQTP5EZ8aCW1DoNj36M6dxgc2QWGk        ( CAUTION - VERY GRAPHIC, or not )

no big deal right?

"God" loves all of "God's creatures........just some more equally than others, right?

/S

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.32  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.29    2 months ago
By never telling His people that He was not okay with slavery, slavery continued sans divine guidance for thousands of years hence

In a way, he (Moses who actually wrote the law though claimed he was inspired by God) did tell his people he was not okay with slavery, at least not for them.

“‘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. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves." - Leviticus 25:39-42

By noting a difference between what was acceptable to do to a foreigner but banning treating their own people the same, they reveal that they themselves knew it to be an abhorrent practice they wouldn't wish upon themselves. Quite the exception to the golden rule.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.33  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.30    2 months ago
Why is that hard to imagine?

Let's say there are ten billion intelligent species. What kind of God would even want to meddle with them all?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.32    2 months ago

Good point.   But I presumed that ancient men understood that being a slave was not a good thing.   I see a difference between recognizing enslavement as an undesirable state and recognizing that it is immoral to enslave someone.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.35  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.30    2 months ago
Free will cannot exist if it is possible to know the future.

That is, if the future is determined then free will is at best an illusion.

(I think we've been here before.)

If we imagine that 'the future" is in fact infinitely bifurcating events, then an omniscient God could know all of them.

That said, I can see no reason for God to want to know the future. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.33    2 months ago

I was addressing the capability of such a powerful entity.   The motivations of such an entity are above my pay grade.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.37  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.35    2 months ago
If we imagine that 'the future" is in fact infinitely bifurcating events, then an omniscient God could know all of them.

Knowing what might happen (i.e. all possible paths in the tree of choices) is entirely different from knowing what will happen.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.38  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.36    2 months ago
The motivations of such an entity are above my pay grade.

All His contours are above my pay grade.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.39  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.29    2 months ago

Okay, so... what I said was not true and Gordy's statement is the only conclusion than can be drawn? Not sure how what you've said here addresses that. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.39    2 months ago
Okay, so... what I said was not true and Gordy's statement is the only conclusion than can be drawn? Not sure how what you've said here addresses that. 

I did not rebut your point @2.2.27:   

Drakk @2.2.27: It is also possible that God is not okay with slavery but had a perfectly moral reason for not prohibiting it, putting restrictions on it instead. 

Rather than rebut, I responded with the consequences of your speculation with this @2.2.29

TiG @2.2.29:  By never telling His people that He was not okay with slavery, slavery continued sans divine guidance for thousands of years hence.   Imagine the impact on history if the Bible included God's position that slavery is not okay even though it was tolerated.
 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.41  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.40    2 months ago
Rather than rebut, I responded with the consequences of your speculation with this...

So you responded with a non-sequitur? Worse, how do you know what the consequences were of God not telling His people directly that He wasn't okay with slavery? How do you know what would have happened if He had? Are you some sort of Hari Seldon?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.42  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.41    2 months ago
So you responded with a non-sequitur?

Why do you insist on interpreting everything I write in the most negative possible fashion?

Worse, how do you know what the consequences were of God not telling His people directly that He wasn't okay with slavery? How do you know what would have happened if He had? Are you some sort of Hari Seldon?

I do not know for certain Drakk.   Reread what I wrote:

TiG @2.2.29:  By never telling His people that He was not okay with slavery, slavery continued sans divine guidance for thousands of years hence.   Imagine the impact on history if the Bible included God's position that slavery is not okay even though it was tolerated.

The first sentence is fact:  The Bible does NOT instruct future generations to NOT engage in slavery much less note that it is immoral.   And the Bible has continued with that message for thousands of years.

My second sentence starts with 'imagine'.   In my opinion, had the Bible proclaimed slavery immoral that would have taken away the biblical excuse for slave traders.    But I did not state anything specific other than imply the proclamation would likely have been net positive.

Maybe spend less time trying to find a gotcha and more time actually reading what I write?   Then maybe I would not have to write and then re-write, ... on every single post.


So what would you imagine?    What if the Bible had actually condemned as immoral the practice of owning human beings as property?   No opinion whatsoever?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.43  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.42    2 months ago
Why do you insist on interpreting everything I write in the most negative possible fashion?

You mean why am I pointing out that you quoted me and then said something that had nothing to do with what the quote was addressing? 

The first sentence is fact:

No, it's your opinion. You are stating that because God did not denounce slavery, the history of slavery turned out the way it did. That is speculation, not fact. God also said not to worship idols and Israel's history was crammed with it. 

The Bible does NOT instruct future generations to NOT engage in slavery much less note that it is immoral.

Then how did Christianity come to believe it is immoral (within your idea of slavery)? How is it that Christianity spearheaded the abolition of slavery?

In my opinion, had the Bible proclaimed slavery immoral that would have taken away the biblical excuse for slave traders.

Well, since there is no Biblical basis for slave traders, not sure how you came to have this opinion, but whatever.  

And the Bible has continued with that message for thousands of years.

That's the way you see it. It is not an established fact. 

My second sentence starts with 'imagine'. In my opinion, had the Bible proclaimed slavery immoral that would have taken away the biblical excuse for slave traders. But I did not state anything specific other than imply the proclamation would likely have been net positive.

What evidence can you provide that would suggest such an outcome?

So what would you imagine? What if the Bible had actually condemned as immoral the practice of owning human beings as property? No opinion whatsoever?

My opinion is that it wouldn't have made much of a difference, if any. God has said from the beginning, "love your neighbor as yourself". That right there is a statement against slavery, since who would want to be a slave themselves? Yet throughout history, mankind has failed spectacularly at this command. What reason is there to believe we'd treat stated disapproval of slavery by God any differently? 

In my opinion, your zeal in judging God blinds you to the boots on the ground reality in which we live. You ignore the technological, cultural, economic and moral state of the people God was dealing with at the time. Instead, just like you do with verses in the Bible, you just pare all that away and just look at the narrowest, most isolated issue you can come up with and judge God on that. Worse, you assume that your views and goals concerning humanity somehow are superior to an all knowing God, giving you the basis to judge Him when in reality, your ideas and His aren't the same concerning mankind. 

Lastly, God didn't institute slavery. We did. God gave us the world to rule over. In doing that we created slavery. What God did was tolerate it but gave His people, the Israelites, limits on what they could do with slaves. In my opinion, one possible reason for God not specifically disallowing it is that if we came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong on our own, we would understand why better than if He'd simply issued a decree against it. In fact, since it is man's nature to want what we can't have, such a declaration may have actually made it worse. 

And in the end it seems to me that is exactly what happened. Christianity spearheaded the fight against slavery. The older Christianity became, the more Christendom began to see just who people are and what we mean to God and that slavery was not what we were made for. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.44  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.43    2 months ago
You mean why am I pointing out that you quoted me and then said something that had nothing to do with what the quote was addressing? 

If you still cannot figure out the relevance then it is on you.   There is only so much explaining I am willing to do.

No, it's your opinion. You are stating that because God did not denounce slavery, the history of slavery turned out the way it did. That is speculation, not fact. God also said not to worship idols and Israel's history was crammed with it. 

I just broke this down for you and you still get it wrong.   I understand you are trying to defend what is largely indefensible and that must be frustrating.  But intellectual dishonesty is not the way to go.   As proof, let's compare what I wrote to what you wrote:

TiG @2.2.29:  By never telling His people that He was not okay with slavery [FACT], slavery continued sans divine guidance for thousands of years hence [FACT].   Imagine the impact on history if the Bible included God's position that slavery is not okay even though it was tolerated [INVITATION FOR YOU TO SPECULATE].

Breaking down the first sentence (which I claim is a fact):

TiG @2.2.29:  By never telling His people that He was not okay with slavery, ...

Fact.   God never told His people that slavery was immoral, to not engage in the practice.    If that is not fact then show me where God denounced the owning of human beings as property.

TiG @2.2.29... , slavery continued sans divine guidance for thousands of years hence. 

Fact.   Slavery did continue for thousands of years sans divine guidance.   If that is not fact then show me the divine guidance against slavery.

Now we move to the second sentence where I clearly stated this is opinion and speculation:

TiG @2.2.29:  Imagine the impact on history if the Bible included God's position that slavery is not okay even though it was tolerated.

Having establishing the first sentence as pure fact (as I had stated) we have in the second sentence an invitation for you to speculate.   In my last post I let you know that I obviously am of the opinion that the results would have been better if God had condemned as immoral the practice of owning people.  I clearly stated this is my opinion.   But this sentence was asking you to imagine what might have been the effect. 

Not going to break this down again.   If you refuse to acknowledge what I wrote at this point then my conclusion is that you are doing so intentionally.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.45  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.43    2 months ago
Then how did Christianity come to believe it is immoral (within your idea of slavery)? How is it that Christianity spearheaded the abolition of slavery?

Where does the Bible condemn the owning of a human being as property?   Show me.   

On your tangent to Christianity, my opinion is that humanity evolved.   People evolved to understand the immorality of slavery.   As with other things Christianity evolved to accept this immorality.   But my comments have not been about Christianity, they have been about the Bible.   The Christianity angle would be a different discussion for me.    So back to the Bible.

Well, since there is no Biblical basis for slave traders, not sure how you came to have this opinion, but whatever.  

Yes, Drakk, whatever.  I am tired of explaining the obvious.

What evidence can you provide that would suggest such an outcome?

My second sentence is an opinion.   My first sentence was the fact.   I phrased my second sentence with 'Imagine ... ' so that is would be clear to most anyone that I am not stating a fact.   See?

That said, it surprises me that you cannot imagine how God condemning the owning of a human being as property would diminish using the Bible as an excuse for slavery.   But I have witnessed stranger stubborn refusals of commonsense.

My opinion is that it wouldn't have made much of a difference, if any. God has said from the beginning, "love your neighbor as yourself". That right there is a statement against slavery, since who would want to be a slave themselves? Yet throughout history, mankind has failed spectacularly at this command. What reason is there to believe we'd treat stated disapproval of slavery by God any differently? 

Well there you go.   You seem to think that people will only use 'love thy neighbor' passages.    But that is not how people with an agenda operate.   (Damn, Drakk, this is high school level knowledge now.)   People with an agenda will flat out lie (and much worse) to advance their cause.   If the Bible is sitting right there condoning slavery and never condemning it, how easy is it for people to use the Bible to advance their agenda FOR slavery?  

Ignoring the predictable personal crap.

You ignore the technological, cultural, economic and moral state of the people God was dealing with at the time.

I have made it quite clear why people of that time saw nothing wrong with slavery.   As for God, well if there were a God I think your tacit argument that God had no choice but to not condemn slavery is lukewarm at best.   This is God, Drakk.   Is God the grandest possible entity, the creator of everything, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.?   If so, then 'God has limitations' is a lame argument.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.46  katrix  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.43    2 months ago
Worse, you assume that your views and goals concerning humanity somehow are superior to an all knowing God, giving you the basis to judge Him when in reality, your ideas and His aren't the same concerning mankind. 

A god's morality should be absolute, and not dependent on how humanity was at the time.  So yes, I can judge that god .. and find him less moral than I am.  I am superior to the god of the bible in terms of my morality and ethics.  If he is a fictional character invented by the people of their time .. then nope, I'm no better or worse than he is.  I'm also a product of the morality of my time.

        You ignore the technological, cultural, economic and moral state of the people God was dealing with at the time.

Yet he could tell them not to mix fibers in their clothes, and not to eat animals with cloven hooves, while directly commanding them to rape and enslave the virgin girls of their enemy's tribes?

You're claiming that God's morality is subjective.  Great point.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.47  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.44    2 months ago
If you still cannot figure out the relevance then it is on you.   There is only so much explaining I am willing to do.

I accept your surrender. 

I just broke this down for you and you still get it wrong. I understand you are trying to defend what is largely indefensible and that must be frustrating. But intellectual dishonesty is not the way to go. As proof, let's compare what I wrote to what you wrote:

LOL. Challenge accepted. Let's see who's intellectually dishonest. 

TiG @2.2.29: By never telling His people that He was not okay with slavery, …
Fact. God never told His people that slavery was immoral, to not engage in the practice. If that is not fact then show me where God denounced the owning of human beings as    property.
TiG @2.2.29: ... , slavery continued sans divine guidance for thousands of years hence.
Fact. Slavery did continue for thousands of years sans divine guidance. If that is not fact then show me the divine guidance against slavery.

Note that you have to separate these parts of the sentence in order to actually be factual? But what happens when you combine them into the original sentence? You are saying that because God did not speak specifically against slavery, slavery continued for thousands of years. Now, it may be your opinion that this is true. After all, it's God's fault for everything, right? But it's not a fact. Because someone can say slavery continued for thousands of years simply because people suck. That slavery was our fault. That is much closer to being a fact than what you presented. Evidence? Because people who never heard of the Biblical God practiced slavery, too. So, saying it's God's fault for not saying anything is an opinion, not fact. And saying it's God's fault is exactly what you are saying here. 

Try again?

Having establishing the first sentence as pure fact (as I had stated) we have in the second sentence an invitation for you to speculate. In my last post I let you know that I obviously am of the opinion that the results would have been better if God had condemned as immoral the practice of owning people. I clearly stated this is my opinion. But this sentence was asking you to imagine what might have been the effect.

Sure, TiG, sure. That's just what you meant. Sure. Um, nope. You were obviously stating that things would have been better because you think people would have just said, okay, and not had slavery. You were presenting it as an obvious result of what you think a truly moral God would have done. You're now backpedaling to save your argument. 

Where does the Bible condemn the owning of a human being as property? Show me.

As you well know, it doesn't specifically condemn it in the manner of a commandment. But I will give you some verses that answers my own question. You know, the one you avoided by asking this one?

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Which means that while the person may be a slave in the human system, God doesn't see them as slaves of other human beings. 

1 Timothy 1:9-10 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

Self explanatory.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Who's going to take a family member as a slave?

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

How can it be right to take someone who bears the image of God Himself and make her a slave?

That said, it surprises me that you cannot imagine how God condemning the owning of a human being as property would diminish using the Bible as an excuse for slavery. But I have witnessed stranger stubborn refusals of commonsense.

Oh, I'm sure it would have diminished using the Bible as an excuse. That isn't the same as diminishing slavery. They still would have had it. They would just use some other pretext. 

Well there you go. You seem to think that people will only use 'love thy neighbor' passages. But that is not how people with an agenda operate. (Damn, Drakk, this is high school level knowledge now.) People with an agenda will flat out lie (and much worse) to advance their cause. If the Bible is sitting right there condoning slavery and never condemning it, how easy is it for people to use the Bible to advance their agenda FOR slavery?

Wow, dude! You literally made my argument for me : ) Did you ignore the part where I said...

Yet throughout history, mankind has failed spectacularly at this command. What reason is there to believe we'd treat stated disapproval of slavery by God any differently?

Kinda sounds like what you just said, doesn't it? 

Ignoring the predictable personal crap.

Not surprising. You aren't here to discuss so you won't listen to someone telling you why you are going wrong. 

I have made it quite clear why people of that time saw nothing wrong with slavery. As for God, well if there were a God I think your tacit argument that God had no choice but to not condemn slavery is lukewarm at best. This is God, Drakk. Is God the grandest possible entity, the creator of everything, omnipotent, omniscience, etc.? If so, then 'God has limitations' is a lame argument.

You still don't get it. It isn't God's limitations that are being spoken of here. It's ours. A perfect God is dealing with a totally corrupted creation. Man. God has no problem with doing the right thing, the right way for the right reasons all the time. It is man who has the problem. You seem to think that all God has to do is pump out commands and proclamations and that's somehow going to fix everything. Not by a long shot. We are corrupted. We cannot do the things God commands us to do on our own. He can issue every decree you think He should and it won't make a difference because the limiting factor is us!

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.48  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.43    2 months ago
In my opinion, your zeal in judging God blinds you to the boots on the ground reality in which we live. You ignore the technological, cultural, economic and moral state of the people God was dealing with at the time. Instead, just like you do with verses in the Bible, you just pare all that away and just look at the narrowest, most isolated issue you can come up with and judge God on that. Worse, you assume that your views and goals concerning humanity somehow are superior to an all knowing God, giving you the basis to judge Him when in reality, your ideas and His aren't the same concerning mankind. 

Did the God of the Bible condemn the owning of human beings as property?    The answer is no.

Is it moral to own a human being as property?   The answer is no.    (If you disagree then I will submit that your position is despicable.)

My net point is that if the Bible does not condemn the owning of human beings as property (among many other failures) then the Bible is a horrible source for morality.   That is my opinion.

Your opinion, apparently, is that the Bible is THE perfect source for objective morality and if it looks like it has failed then that is either 'taking it out of context' or 'we are too stupid to understand it'.

My opinion is that the above is extreme rationalization of a belief and that those who continue to promote the Bible as objective morality do a disservice to the naive people of the world who continue to buy this nonsense.

And those who actually defend as moral the practice of owning human beings as property or killing men who have engaged in homosexual acts or murdering, raping and enslaving others or engaging in human sacrifice or ... needs to break free of whatever has ensnared their minds and start thinking a bit more critically.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.49  katrix  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.47    2 months ago
You are saying that because God did not speak specifically against slavery, slavery continued for thousands of years.

God specifically commanded his people to enslave others, to murder everyone who wasn't a virgin girl (imagine how his people tested the girls for virginity) and to enslave and rape all the virgin girls. It's not merely about God's not condemning the practice .. he specifically commanded it.  That's how the people who invented this god thought, so of course their god reflects the values and morals of their time.  Our tribe - good.  Your tribe - bad.  So anything we do is justified and moral, and our god says so.

That doesn't speak to a real god - it speaks to a god invented by humans who were trying to justify their atrocities and pretend they were more moral than their enemies.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.50  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.47    2 months ago
Note that you have to separate these parts of the sentence in order to actually be factual?

I do not believe I am reading this crap.

But what happens when you combine them into the original sentence? 

You get this:  

TiG @2.2.29:  By never telling His people that He was not okay with slavery [FACT], slavery continued sans divine guidance for thousands of years hence [FACT]. 

Read the 'sans divine guidance' part.   Use your brain.   This is not difficult to understand if you truly want to understand what I wrote.   If not, then play the intellectually dishonest game with yourself now.   


As you well know, it doesn't specifically condemn it in the manner of a commandment. But I will give you some verses that answers my own question. You know, the one you avoided by asking this one?

It does not ever condemn it in any form.   

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Where does this state that the owning of a human being as property is immoral?

1 Timothy 1:9-10 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

Where does this state that the owning of a human being as property is immoral?    Also, why are slave-traders included?    Because it refers to those who steal slaves.  Thieves of human property.   You were not aware of that?

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Where does this state that the owning of a human being as property is immoral?

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Where does this state that the owning of a human being as property is immoral?

You are not going to pull this one out of a hat Drakk.   Admit that per the Bible, slavery is okay.   God condones slavery.   Thus all those who read the Bible for divine justification to enslave have easy pickings because look at the crap you have delivered as your best rebuttal.


Wow, dude! You literally made my argument for me : ) Did you ignore the part where I said...

Do you have someone else writing your posts for you Drakk?   I ask because at times I am engaging with the Drakk I knew and other times I do not even recognize the person going by the name of Drakkonis.  Dude?   Let's look at my question, your entire answer and my response, 'dude':

TiG @2.2.42 So what would you imagine? What if the Bible had actually condemned as immoral the practice of owning human beings as property? No opinion whatsoever?

Drakk @2.2.43: My opinion is that it wouldn't have made much of a difference, if any. God has said from the beginning, "love your neighbor as yourself". That right there is a statement against slavery, since who would want to be a slave themselves? Yet throughout history, mankind has failed spectacularly at this command. What reason is there to believe we'd treat stated disapproval of slavery by God any differently? 

TiG @2.2.45Well there you go.   You seem to think that people will only use 'love thy neighbor' passages.    But that is not how people with an agenda operate.   (Damn, Drakk, this is high school level knowledge now.)   People with an agenda will flat out lie (and much worse) to advance their cause.   If the Bible is sitting right there condoning slavery and never condemning it, how easy is it for people to use the Bible to advance their agenda FOR slavery?  

So now take your last sentence (I will bring it down for you to see) and then take my last sentence (which I will also bring down for you):

Drakk @2.2.43:  What reason is there to believe we'd treat stated disapproval of slavery by God any differently? 

TiG @2.2.45If the Bible is sitting right there condoning slavery and never condemning it, how easy is it for people to use the Bible to advance their agenda FOR slavery?  

You asked for a reason and, sure enough, I included the reason in my answer.    In case you cannot see this, the reason to believe that stated disapproval of slavery by God might make a difference is because those over history who have used the Bible to justify slavery would no longer have their divine justification.   Also, and this is something for you to ponder, imagine the impact on all those who were not even slavers?   If the Bible condemned slavery do you not think the Bible-loving common folk would maybe raise an eyebrow at the enslavement of people?    This really is obvious stuff.

And, of course, you are yet again wrong and you are wrong because you either fail to read what I write, ignore critical parts of what I write or just flat out invent your own meaning and run with it.

( And if you do have others writing posts for you, I suggest you fire your latest 'dude' helper for being intellectually sloppy. )

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.51  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.50    2 months ago
I do not believe I am reading this crap.

I can't believe I'm bothering with this crap. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.52  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.51    2 months ago
I can't believe I'm bothering with this crap. 

Exactly my position.   I write a response and then spend 2-3 comments afterwards breaking down the plain English with specific, annotated quotes and even then you still refuse to comprehend my meaning.  

I prove you wrong every time you play this pointless game and yet sure enough the game creeps back in.   Makes no sense.   Would you not prefer to engage honestly?   Why play pointless semantic games when you know I am going to call you on them?

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.53  katrix  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.51    2 months ago

I should be surprised that you haven't addressed my comments about how God specifically commanded people to rape and enslave others, but I'm not.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.54  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.27    2 months ago
Untrue because this isn't the only conclusion that can be drawn. It is also possible that God is not okay with slavery but had a perfectly moral reason for not prohibiting it, putting restrictions on it instead. 

If god allows slavery, even with specific conditions, then that infers god is ok with slavery, at least to a degree. If god is the objective arbiter of morality (as some believe), then god either views slavery as moral or immoral. There can be no gray area. There can be no moral justification for slavery. So either god does not view slavery as immoral, or the bible/god views on slavery merely reflect the views of biblical writers and the times they lived in.

Okay, so... what I said was not true and Gordy's statement is the only conclusion than can be drawn?

Well, the only logical conclusion. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

Worse, how do you know what the consequences were of God not telling His people directly that He wasn't okay with slavery?

Slavery continued for centuries after the fact.

How do you know what would have happened if He had?

Logically, there would probably have been less instances of slavery. 

God also said not to worship idols and Israel's history was crammed with it.

Until god took issue with it. That even made it onto god's top 10 list. But slavery didn't? Interesting.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.55  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.54    2 months ago

Fascinating is it not?   The God of the Bible never condemns the widely practiced owning of people as property.  Yet Drakk argues that maybe God considers slavery immoral but had reasons to not declare it as such.   The direct and obvious explanation for why God did not condemn owning people as property is because the God character of the Bible is nothing but the fictional invention of men who held slavery as perfectly moral.  But that is categorically rejected in favor of a possibility that makes no sense.   God makes rules against having sex with the family goat (penalty of death) yet for some mysterious reason never can bring Himself to provide divine moral instruction on the owning of people as property.

Some will conceive extraordinary scenarios to cling to the notion that the Bible is divine.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.57  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.54    2 months ago
If god allows slavery, even with specific conditions, then that infers god is ok with slavery, at least to a degree.

No, it doesn't. Such a view is superficial. It doesn't take into account that God can be totally against one human owning another (in the manner you guys are speaking of) but allow us to practice what we ourselves instituted because it serves some purpose of His. 

If god is the objective arbiter of morality (as some believe), then god either views slavery as moral or immoral. There can be no gray area. There can be no moral justification for slavery.

True enough.

 So either god does not view slavery as immoral, or the bible/god views on slavery merely reflect the views of biblical writers and the times they lived in.

Or God has a valid, moral reason for not commanding us to stop it in the manner you guys are demanding. 

Further, you guys throw around the word "slavery" as if there is only one kind. The chattel slavery of the American south. God has actually spoken specifically against that kind of slavery. All one has to do is look at the protections God gave for the slave to see that. The one that most specifically shows this is the one who kidnaps or holds a person who was kidnapped was to be put to death. That right there shows God's attitude toward what the south did and how the Bible can't be used to justify it. 

Well, the only logical conclusion.

No, the only one you can come up with. 

Slavery continued for centuries after the fact.

Are you suggesting that this would have been different had God said what you wanted Him to say? Do you realize Israel was a tiny little country in a world that practiced slavery? Do you think the rest of the world would have said "Darn! The God of Israel said no slavery so I guess you're all free to go"?

Logically, there would probably have been less instances of slavery.

Okay, present the logic. I would advise you to take a good look at history first, though. 

Until god took issue with it. That even made it onto god's top 10 list. But slavery didn't? Interesting.

Until God took issue with it? It was one of the very first things He told the Israelites when He brought them out of Egypt! Israel's history was shot through with them turning from God and worshipping idols. There was no until. If this is so, what makes you think they would have done slavery different even if God had prohibited it? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.58  Drakkonis  replied to  katrix @2.2.53    2 months ago
I should be surprised that you haven't addressed my comments about how God specifically commanded people to rape and enslave others, but I'm not.

Why are you not surprised? That is, why do you think I do not reply to you anymore, Katrix?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.59  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.57    2 months ago
Further, you guys throw around the word "slavery" as if there is only one kind.

That is precisely why most of the time I spell it out with:  'owning a human being as property' and focus on the morality of that rather than the treatment of slaves (as in human beings who are owned as property).  By not spelling it out and constantly reinforce that this is a moral question, there is an opportunity for one to play word games and deflect the focus of the debate.

The Bible does not condemn the owning of human beings as property yet it was one of the most widespread practices of the time.   It was not overlooked or minimized as irrelevant given there are rules for proper enslavement.   If the Bible is simply the work of ancient men, the lack of condemnation is obvious - these men considered it normal to own human beings as property.   If the Bible, however, is the divine word of a perfect, omniscient God, - the arbiter of objective morality - the failure in perpetuity to condemn the owning of human beings as property is inexplicable.  Explanations such as 'maybe God had a good reason to never condemn such an immoral practice' seem just a tad feeble.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
2.2.60  Phoenyx13  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.59    2 months ago
Explanations such as 'maybe God had a good reason to never condemn such an immoral practice' seem just a tad feeble.

and this explanation would inevitably lead to -- "God works in mysterious ways" -- so no one would ever really know

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.61  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.57    2 months ago
Such a view is superficial. It doesn't take into account that God can be totally against one human owning another (in the manner you guys are speaking of) but allow us to practice what we ourselves instituted because it serves some purpose of His.

So god is a hypocrite. Or just plain selfish. He doesn't like slavery but allows it if it suits him. What a despicable act.

True enough.

So by that reasoning, god is therefore immoral for allowing slavery.

Or God has a valid, moral reason for not commanding us to stop it in the manner you guys are demanding.

Either slavery is moral or immoral? There is no in between. make up your mind. If god allows it, then god is complicit in it.

Further, you guys throw around the word "slavery" as if there is only one kind.

We're specifically talking about the owning of a human being as property. That has been made clear.

All one has to do is look at the protections God gave for the slave to see that.

What a disgusting rationalization. A slave is still a slave and a piece of property to be owned by another, regardless of any "protections." And a slave can be beaten by their owner with no repercussions, as long as the slave doesn't die within a certain time period. How is beating the crap out of somebody a "protection?"

No, the only one you can come up with.

It's the only one period!

Are you suggesting that this would have been different had God said what you wanted Him to say? Do you realize Israel was a tiny little country in a world that practiced slavery? Do you think the rest of the world would have said "Darn! The God of Israel said no slavery so I guess you're all free to go"?

God supposedly made rules and commandments for everyone to follow, regardless of where it originated. And many people the world over follow those rules even today. Yet he says nothing about prohibiting slavery. Why would slavery be any different?

Okay, present the logic. I would advise you to take a good look at history first, though.

See previous statement. Also, no one can use a biblical justification of slavery. Without that kind of justification and support, it's reasonable slavery may have been less prevalent. I'm not saying it would have disappeared outright or completely.

Until God took issue with it? It was one of the very first things He told the Israelites when He brought them out of Egypt!

Funny how it doesn't even make an appearance on the 10 Commandments, nor is it prohibited outright in the bible.

Israel's history was shot through with them turning from God and worshipping idols. 

Worshipping idols is not the same as owning slaves.

That is, why do you think I do not reply to you anymore, Katrix?

Maybe because you can't actually answer Katrix's questions or offer a logical rebuttal?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.62  TᵢG  replied to  Phoenyx13 @2.2.60    2 months ago

It is a non-answer.   It basically explains away an argument by tacitly admitting the apologist finds the logic sound but somehow knows it is nonetheless wrong for reasons s/he cannot explain (but God knows).

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.63  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.61    2 months ago
Funny how it doesn't even make an appearance on the 10 Commandments, nor is it prohibited outright in the bible.

For emphasis:  The 10 Commandments (simply stated)

  1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
  2. You shall make no idols.
  3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
  4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
  5. Honor your father and your mother.
  6. You shall not murder.
  7. You shall not commit adultery.
  8. You shall not steal.
  9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  10. You shall not covet.

One can make a good case for why these are in the top 10:

  • You shall have no other gods before Me.
  • You shall not murder.
  • You shall not steal.

But then look at the commandments that were deemed more important than:

"You shall not own human beings as property"

  • You shall make no idols.
  • You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
  • Keep the Sabbath day holy.
  • Honor your father and your mother.
  • You shall not commit adultery.
  • You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  • You shall not covet.

And the 10th commandment even mentions coveting another man's human property.   

No place to squeeze in:  "You shall not own human beings as property" ?

jrSmiley_92_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.64  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.63    2 months ago
And the 10th commandment even mentions coveting another man's human property.    No place to squeeze in:  You shall not own human beings as property ?

Maybe it was in the 11-15 section of the Commandments? Curse you clumsy Moses, jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.65  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.64    2 months ago

Know that bit well.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

By RICHARD FURMAN, President of the Baptist State Convention.  Charleston South Carolina Dec 24,  1822

...It appears to be equally clear, that those, who by reasoning on abstract principles, are induced to favor the scheme of general emancipation, and who ascribe their sentiments to Christianity, should be particularly careful, however benevolent their intentions may be that they do not by a perversion of the Scriptural doctrine, through their wrong views of it, not only invade the domestic and religious peace and rights of our Citizens, on this subject; but, as by an intemperate zeal, prevent indirectly, the religious improvement of the people they design, professedly, to benefit; and, perhaps, become, evidently, the means of producing in our country, scenes of anarchy and blood; and all this in a vain attempt to bring about a state of things, which, if arrived at, would not probably better the state of that people
 
 
 
Kavika
4  Kavika     2 months ago

The Southern Baptists were pretty much the same over a hundred years later.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @4    2 months ago

Kavika, these men were good Christians. They say God wanted the Africans to be slaves because it was their natural role, ordained by Providence.

Christians also believed that the Native Americans were designed by God to be exploited and wiped out.

What kind of God are we dealing with here?

Or did these men misinterpret the Bible?

But then, dont fundamentalist Christians say we should take everything in the Bible as the literal word and instruction of God?

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.1  Kavika   replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 months ago
Christians also believed that the Native Americans were designed by God to be exploited and wiped out.

It's known as the ''Doctrine of Discovery'' which later became ''Manifest Destiny''.....

Indian religions were outlawed by the US Government....Yes the so called Christians. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 months ago
Kavika, these men were good Christians.

John, these men were not good Christians. The anti-slavery movement, also grounded in Christianity, was well underway in McDuffie's day.

When the Bible was written, slavery was the norm. Already in McDuffie's time, that was no longer true, and the end of the institution was writ large.

You are taking the example of evil men, who styled themselves "Christians", to tar all who use that title with the same brush. Mr X was a Zoroastrian. He killed his wife. All Zoroastrians murder their wives. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.2    2 months ago

What I think I am doing is pointing out that the Bible and religion can be used according to the eye of the beholder. No sane person would believe that God ordained slavery, yet the "scriptural " rationale for slavery and racism was used in the early to mid 1800's.

Although no one uses the text of the Bible to defend slavery any more, some do use it to promote causes and beliefs today that Jesus would probably not agree with.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    2 months ago
What I think I am doing is pointing out that the Bible and religion can be used according to the eye of the beholder. No sane person would believe that God ordained slavery, yet the "scriptural " rationale for slavery and racism was used in the early to mid 1800's.

I made the same point.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.4    2 months ago
I made the same point.

Several hundred times, it seems.........

Must be the 'time warp continuum'...

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.5    2 months ago

Thing is, there are people who still use the Bible to justify bad behavior (e.g. bigotry).   And then there are people who are so determined to defend the Bible as divine that they will actually try to argue that slavery is not necessarily immoral.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    2 months ago

John... You called McDuffie a "good Christian". 

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.7    2 months ago

Jim Jones was a good christian too.  At least there were those who thought so.

The term 'good christian' reeks of the same turpitude as 'good muslim'.  Or 'good anything' actually.

Slavery is the same thing it always was.  And.....it still exists in the 21st Century....raw and exposed.....and even more subtle---gentrified.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.7    2 months ago

Tony Alamo thought he was a good Christian. Warren Jeffs thinks he's a good Christian. I bet even David Dukes thinks he's a good Christian.

And we all know Pat Robertson thinks he's the best Christian

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.10  katrix  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.9    2 months ago

Totally off topic, but you need to read a book called Unmentionable.  Everyone needs to read this book.  It's about how women dealt with their stuff back in the 1800s .. gross but hilarious, and well researched.

I always did wonder how people peed in hoop skirts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5  TᵢG    2 months ago

Given the amount of slavery (among other things) that are not condemned by the God of the Bible and given the fact that slavery is effectively condoned by God since He made rules for proper enslavement, it would seem impossible for future Bible-reading religious people to NOT justify slavery with the Bible.    The economic benefit of owning other human beings as property was substantial motivation.  And if God says it is okay, well, there you go.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5    2 months ago

Kinda anachronistic, no?

Slavery was the way of the world when the Bible was written. 

Sometimes, you're as inerrantist as the worst of the fundies. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1    2 months ago
Sometimes, you're as inerrantist as the worst of the fundies. 

You do not realize that my point is about those who use the Bible to justify their actions???   

Slavery was the way of the world when the Bible was written. 

That is correct.   That is why the writers of the Bible saw nothing at all wrong writing their God character as one who condones the practice.   It probably never occurred to them that the owning of another human being as property is immoral since slavery was around well before they were born with no hint that it would ever disappear.  Further, even if some more enlightened writers realized the immorality, it is not as though they would have the option to go against the backbone of the economic system.   

To wit, countless billions of people who have had access to the Bible over time have had a ready-made excuse for slavery.   Nowhere does the God they turn to for moral guidance condemn as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property.

'God is okay with slavery' so 'Slavery is okay' in their minds.

I trust you see that.   My point.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    2 months ago
You do not realize that my point is about those who use the Bible to justify their actions???

I've known you long enough to understand that perfectly.

I was underscoring the fact that you didn't actually say that. A reader who doesn't know you so well might take your words at face value.  jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.2    2 months ago
I was underscoring the fact that you didn't actually say that.

But ...

TiG @5 - Given the amount of slavery (among other things) that are not condemned by the God of the Bible and given the fact that slavery is effectively condoned by God since He made rules for proper enslavement, it would seem impossible for future Bible-reading religious people to NOT justify slavery with the Bible.    The economic benefit of owning other human beings as property was substantial motivation.  And if God says it is okay, well, there you go.
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.3    2 months ago
... it would seem impossible for future Bible-reading religious people to NOT justify slavery with the Bible.

That sounds kinda like "it's the Bible's fault." 

It's tricky. The Bible certainly does not directly condemn slavery. It reflects the values of the times when it was written. I'm not sure that people back then could have understood, so many ideas about the nature of humanity are more recent.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.4    2 months ago
That sounds kinda like "it's the Bible's fault." 

The Bible provides the excuse, and in rather stark terms when it comes to slavery.   Human desire to read what one seeks completes the picture.   If someone really wants to find justification for slavery in the Bible, it is quite easy to achieve this goal.

In fact, it is difficult to do the opposite - to argue that the Bible (and thus God) finds immoral the practice of owning another human being as property.

It's tricky. The Bible certainly does not directly condemn slavery. It reflects the values of the times when it was written.

Absolutely.   If one views the Bible as merely the work of ancient men, the contents (and errors) are quite logically understood.   It is when one tries to interpret the Bible as the divine word of a perfect God that severe logical problems arise.

I'm not sure that people back then could have understood, so many ideas about the nature of humanity are more recent.

I agree.  How can one whose entire history is replete with slavery think that slavery is immoral?   It does not surprise me in the least that the Bible condones slavery.   It would be impressive (and would serve as weak evidence for a higher being) if the Bible actually did condemn as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property.  That would be something one would not expect of the ancient authors.

But, in the end, the Bible reads as though it was written (and rewritten and edited and rewritten ...) by ancient men sans divine guidance.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1    2 months ago
Kinda anachronistic, no? Slavery was the way of the world when the Bible was written. 

I take it the God of the bible isn't powerful enough to overcome the uncivilized nature of the times to do what is right so he just went with it and condoned slavery instead? It was just too hard not to own people so heck, what was he supposed to do, I mean, he's not perfect, right? Or is it that humans have just socially evolved past the morality of an ancient God but because people don't want to give up on their belief they don't claim their God has morally evolved as they have, but that God was perfect all along and we finally learned to see it. And they can all logically conclude that when the ancient God made rules for slavery and told his people they could take slaves from other nations and own them and their children and their children's children in perpetuity, what he really meant was that slavery is bad and all humans should be treated equally regardless of their skin color... I guess you have to just read between the lines, you know, in that empty space where anyone can speculate and imagine whatever they want to for no other reason than because they want to.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.6    2 months ago
... the God of the bible isn't powerful enough...

 Which "God of the Bible"? There are several.

And I think you're being anachronistic, and therefore incoherent. If you mean "the God of the period of the Bible", then He had no reason to interfere with slavery, which was a constant, all across the world. 

If you mean an intemporal  God of the whole universe... then He simply doesn't interfere in the world, because to do so would mean we do not have Free Will.

This subject deserves more thought than you have given it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.7    2 months ago
Which "God of the Bible"? There are several.

I took his meaning to be the 'true' God character as defined in the Bible.   In the OT, the God character is Yahweh.   In the NT, the predominant God character is Jesus.

Seems clear to me given the context of his post.   

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.7    2 months ago
He had no reason to interfere with slavery, which was a constant, all across the world. 

He was supposedly hand writing laws for his chosen people, I think that's some serious interference already. He commands the males to chop the tips of their foreskin off to be his people, but he doesn't do away with owning humans as animals?

"If you mean an intemporal  God of the whole universe... then He simply doesn't interfere in the world, because to do so would mean we do not have Free Will."

Well then by definition that God can't be any of the Gods presented in the bible who supposedly did or do interfere, and yes, that does mean those who believe in that kind of thing believe they have no free will.

"This subject deserves more thought than you have given it."

I've spent the better part of the last half century thinking about it, but yes, my earlier comment was flippant, though meant only as something that might shock a sheep into thinking outside their paddock.

"Which "God of the Bible"? There are several."

While I completely understand what you mean, most bible believers I've spoken too believe there to be only one "true God" as it were, and they believe that God to be the God that inspired the many disparate books of the bible from dozens of different writers to be written, then agreed upon by a religious and political council in Rome some 3000 to 300 years after their supposed events within took place. That is the God to which I refer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.7    2 months ago
If you mean "the God of the period of the Bible", then He had no reason to interfere with slavery, which was a constant, all across the world. 

Other than it being immoral.   

Your argument might make a little sense if the God of the Bible had not authored all sorts of rules dealing with minutia.   God apparently had sufficient reason to make 613 rules among which is disallowing charging the poor interest on loans (Exodus 22:25) yet giving divine direction that owning another person as property is immoral does not make the cut.

Further, if God is going to make rules for enslavement (e.g. Exodus 21) it is difficult to accept the notion that He is not interfering with the practice of slavery.


The above is based on the premise that the God of the Bible is real and that the Bible is accurate.   With that premise in place, it is easy to show how the Bible is replete with contradictions (and that the premise is wrong).

However, if we discard that premise and instead make no assumptions other than what we know to be factual - the Bible was written, re-written, edited by ancient men over thousands of years - its resulting content (errors and all) makes perfect sense.   Sans divine assumptions it is obvious why ancient men did not devise a God who would deem the backbone of their economy (owning human beings as property) immoral.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.9    2 months ago
He was supposedly hand writing laws for his chosen people... 

According to whom? You? 

You're taking both sides of the argument, here. You are claiming divine authorship for the Bible, while disagreeing with it. Which is it? 

Well then by definition that God can't be any of the Gods presented in the bible...

Gosh! Do you mean to say that a text written two or three millennia ago has a simplistic understanding of God? 

... most bible believers I've spoken to...

The problem is that the most vociferous Bible believers actually know very little about the Bible. They sometimes know texts by heart... often in King James English... but are rarely able to situate those texts in context. 

Our universe is described by science. Science is vast and complicated. It's so much easier to learn a few random bits from an ancient book.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.10    2 months ago
Other than it being immoral.

According to current Western thinking. Why would a God from thousands of years ago agree with us?

Your argument might make a little sense if the God of the Bible had not authored all sorts of rules dealing with minutia. 

You've got it upside down. Minutia was what God did. That's who He was. That's why the serious stuff needed specific treatment, inscribed in stone and so on.

We must try to put ourselves in that world before science. There was no "scientific causation". Events were either random or caused by someone / something... spirits and gods. 

Why is it surprising that that God make finicky little rules?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.11    2 months ago
Gosh! Do you mean to say that a text written two or three millennia ago has a simplistic understanding of God? 

You know of course that when an atheist speaks of the God of the Bible, s/he is speaking of a character in a book.   No assumption that this character actually exists.   So it is not that one presumes ancient men had a simplistic understanding of God, but that they had a simplistic idea for their God character.   They did not think it through sufficiently to avoid creating a self-refuting character.

The problem is that the most vociferous Bible believers actually know very little about the Bible. 

That seems to be the case (in my experiences).

It's so much easier to learn a few random bits from an ancient book.

Do you really think laziness is the key impetus for holding religious beliefs superior to well established science?   I think it is more that the religious beliefs are very comforting and that one will resist losing that comfort by accepting facts to the contrary.   Consider the YECs and their literal interpretation of the Bible.   If they cannot literally interpret the Bible their entire religious belief system falls apart.   No surprise they are such a strong force in the 'evolution is nonsense' campaign.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.12    2 months ago
According to current Western thinking. Why would a God from thousands of years ago agree with us?

There is no reason why any god would agree with any human being.   Also, you need to be clear.  Are you talking about a character in a book or are you talking about an actual god - one that actually exists?   Makes a massive difference.

Why is it surprising that that God make finicky little rules?

As I have noted, it does not surprise me a bit.   The God of the Bible is almost certainly a character created by ancient men and thus is imbued with their mores and values.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.13    2 months ago
They did not think it through sufficiently to avoid creating a self-refuting character.

The idiots! We know all the answers, after only a few more millennia.

oh, wait... we still don't...  jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

I think it is more that the religious beliefs are very comforting and that one will resist losing that comfort by accepting facts to the contrary.

Dunno. I find them rigid, fearful of reality. That must be uncomfortable.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.16  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.14    2 months ago
Also, you need to be clear.  Are you talking about a character in a book or are you talking about an actual god - one that actually exists?   Makes a massive difference.

Good point. Here, I'm talking about a character in a book, described from numerous points of view by numerous different authors, and therefore appearing quite different in different parts of the Book.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.15    2 months ago
The idiots! We know all the answers, after only a few more millennia.

We have learned a few things Bob.   For example, we understand that the moon is not a light source and that the lights in the skies are actually planets (non-blinking), stars and entire galaxies.   We also have learned a few things about logic.   For example, an omniscient entity cannot (by definition) be surprised.  And, of course, per this topic our morality has evolved.   Most modern cultures do consider the owning of human beings as property to be immoral.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.16    2 months ago

Good.  That is what I mean by the God of the Bible too.

Those who deem the Bible to be the divine word of God, however, take on a seemingly impossible task of trying to make unified sense of this collection of schtuff so as to hold to the idea that this came from a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. entity who created everything and is thus the arbiter of objective morality.

Tough gig.   I appreciate the effort and understand the utter frustration of the challenge.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.17    2 months ago
We have learned a few things

Exactly.

Expecting the authors of the Bible to know stuff that wasn't known until much later is... anachronistic.

This is true of "theological stuff" just as it is true of "scientific stuff".

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.18    2 months ago
Tough gig.

And utterly pointless. Even counterproductive, from their point of view. I read a lot of religion blogs, and I don't know how many participants describe their leaving the fold when the cognitive dissonance became unbearable.

OTOH, if we read the Bible as a collection of works concerning God as He was understood when they were written, it's fascinating.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.19    2 months ago
Expecting the authors of the Bible to know stuff that wasn't known until much later is..

Nobody expects the authors to know that.   The fact that they do not know suggests that they had no divine (or at least advanced) information.   Stated differently, if the authors had known such things, that would have been evidence that the Bible is more than simply the work of ancient men with pens.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.20    2 months ago
OTOH, if we read the Bible as a collection of works concerning God as He was understood when they were written, it's fascinating.

Agreed.

I read a lot of religion blogs, and I don't know how many participants describe their leaving the fold when the cognitive dissonance became unbearable.

I am not surprised.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.21    2 months ago
Nobody expects the authors to know that.

There are some folks in this thread who seem to think that they should have know that slavery is immoral.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.11    2 months ago
According to whom? You?

Many believers and the book they put their faith in. Of course not.

"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Exodus 31:13

"You're taking both sides of the argument, here. You are claiming divine authorship for the Bible, while disagreeing with it. Which is it?"

I'm not taking both sides of the argument, as I intentionally said "supposedly hand writing laws".

Supposed: adjective - generally assumed or believed to be the case, but not necessarily so.

"You are claiming divine authorship for the Bible, while disagreeing with it."

No, I'm claiming those who used the bible to excuse slavery claimed it of divine origin.

"Which is it?"

I do not believe it is of divine origin. I believe it to be the collective works of many wise or influential men for their times who were likely inspired by real events they interpreted to be signs, portents and prophecies. Those works were then selectively chosen and compiled under the direction of a Roman Emperor into the book we call the bible. That book was then used for both good and ill for the next 1700 years, but its primary function was that of controlling the uneducated masses throughout Europe and the Mediterranean. It was the perfect carrot and stick. Scriptures and prophecies taken out of context seemed to be the voice of God telling these unlettered peasants that they had two options, heaven or eternal torment.

"The problem is that the most vociferous Bible believers actually know very little about the Bible. They sometimes know texts by heart... often in King James English... but are rarely able to situate those texts in context. "

That's true enough. Most Christians I've spoken to have very little actual bible knowledge and can't defend most of the doctrines they claim to believe in.

"Our universe is described by science. Science is vast and complicated. It's so much easier to learn a few random bits from an ancient book."

I have to assume that was meant sarcastically. And yes, while it would be much easier to answer every question on science and biology tests with "God did it", obviously truth is worth taking the time to unravel the vast and complicated universe without just jumping to conclusions for conveniences sake.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.23    2 months ago
There are some folks in this thread who seem to think that they should have know that slavery is immoral.

There are also those who tacitly defend the morality of slavery by defending god's lack of prohibition against slavery.

 
 
 
charger 383
5.1.26  charger 383  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.25    2 months ago

The bible also describes abortion and does not prohibit that either. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.23    2 months ago
There are some folks in this thread who seem to think that they should have know that slavery is immoral.

I have not noticed anyone blaming the ancient biblical authors for being men of their times.

But if the Bible is the divine word of a perfect God it does stand to reason that these men would have been informed by same that slavery is immoral.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.28  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.24    2 months ago
I believe it to be...

Apparently we pretty much agree on the origins of the book. 

OTOH, the book is not responsible for whatever men have done with it. It would have to have supernatural powers...  jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Churches are power structures, and power tends to corrupt... but a book is a book. 

meant sarcastically.

Not at all. Learning a few verses by heart, in support of a simple story, is a lot easier than learning a significant amount about a dozen different sciences.

In fact, most people don't learn much about anything. The fundies just accept whatever their preacher says, and the rest accept whatever Bill Nye (or whoever) says. The difference is in the "trusted source".

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.28    2 months ago
In fact, most people don't learn much about anything. The fundies just accept whatever their preacher says, and the rest accept whatever Bill Nye (or whoever) says. The difference is in the "trusted source".

If Bill Nye makes a claim regarding science it can be easily verified and, for the most part, researched to whatever level of detail one wishes.   Further, we can see the results of science all around us - science works.   If Ken Ham makes a claim such as the Ark carried two dinosaurs and all species of dinosaurs came from those two, then there is no way to verify that claim.   There is no falsifiability in religious claims.   It is truly a dead end where one either trusts a source (e.g. the Bible) or one is without recourse.   This, of course, is why faith is touted to be a virtue.

Equating science to religion on the aspect of trusted sources does not survive the first level of scrutiny.  jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.30  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.28    2 months ago
Churches are power structures, and power tends to corrupt... but a book is a book. 

In a way, religions are the stock brokers of invisible commodities, the parishioners are the investors and the book and/or interpreted doctrine is the supposed spiritual asset that is accruing value and will supposedly someday payout big-time rewards. The religions must keep selling their brand to keep the value of their stock up. It's why virtually every religion save a handful tell you the only way to salvation is through buying their religious doctrine and investing your money, time and energy in it. So yes, the book is not to be blamed for the humans who capitalized on it and used it to get what they wanted, be it money, fame or power, but it is also the only supposed connection to the reward they promised. It's also why reading the bible was banned for centuries on pain of death. They needed to control the knowledge, made you come to them to get a little taste of what they sold to the people as Gods own words.

"The fundies just accept whatever their preacher says, and the rest accept whatever Bill Nye (or whoever) says. The difference is in the "trusted source".

A persons knowledge and education are only as good as their source. Narrow minds contain shallow waters.

"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein

Religion tends to punish both the passionate and the curious.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.31  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.25    2 months ago
There are also...

Dear Lord, I hope not! That was despicable enough a century ago. The idea that anyone would reproduce it today is nauseating. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.32  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.27    2 months ago

I note that you used a very big "if"...  jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.32    2 months ago
I note that you used a very big "if"... 

Some people (not you) tend to presume a particular interpretation regardless of what I write.    I doubt even measures like that will make a difference but at least I am experimenting.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.34  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.29    2 months ago

The problem is that what the preacher says can also be verified, by asking the bishop.

Like it or not, most  people use their trusted sources in the same manner: unquestioningly. If necessary, they have backstops.

Let's not forget that one of America's most trusted sources is Fox News.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.35  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.29    2 months ago
If Bill Nye makes a claim regarding science it can be easily verified...

Not really. In the real world, that verification would be reference to another trusted source. Getting to experimental proof would be anything but easy. 

Those of us who "believe in science" are convinced that, with enough effort, we could get to the experimental proof for... everything. In the real world, we never will make that effort, because we are absolutely confident in our trusted sources.

Kinda like...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.36  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.30    2 months ago

May I suggest a find/replace? Replace "religion" with "church". In that case, I agree.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.34    2 months ago
The problem is that what the preacher says can also be verified, by asking the bishop.

What a human being says is not important.  What is important is what the human being can evidence (or prove).

In science, for example, it matters not what the most brilliant scientist says.   His/her theory will be scrutinized for flaws and until it passes the scrutiny it will not mean anything.   And the scrutiny continues indefinitely.   

There is no equivalent in religion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.35    2 months ago
Not really. In the real world, that verification would be reference to another trusted source. Getting to experimental proof would be anything but easy.

But it is there Bob and it most definitely can be accessed.    Further, the science is demonstrated.  One need not even go to raw experiment data to see that evolution, for example, is indeed the method for speciation (see: anti-virus research).   One can find countless examples of how relativity is used in modern technology such as GPS.   Science is reified in the world in which we live and if anyone doubts it (such as flat earthers) there are many layers of scientific explanations as one moves down to the raw data (i.e. nautical maps, satellite images).

Kinda like...

And that is the real shame part, because as far as I can tell the unnamed 'it' in your partial sentence is a false confidence delivered in a system that ensnares minds.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.39  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.37    2 months ago
There is no equivalent in religion.

There is no identity. There is certainly equivalence. 

The vast majority have their trusted sources, and look no further.

While you (and I) are convinced we could dig down to physical evidence, the fact is that we never have and never will. We function with our trusted sources in exactly the same manner as a fundie.

I trust Scientific American...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.40  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.38    2 months ago
One can find countless examples of how relativity is used in modern technology such as GPS.

Not really. You know how GPS is affected by relativistic effects because you have read about it in a trusted source. You have no first-hand evidence. 

We could not function if we had to learn everything for ourselves. Very young, we learn to trust our parents. We go to school where we encounter other sources.

Meanwhile, some kids go to fundie religious schools...

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.40    2 months ago
You have no first-hand evidence. 

True.   One could trace GPS engineering down to the field equations for time dilation, experiments which verify same via jets and incredibly precise clocks.   One could inspect countless applications of the technology and cross-reference to produce what should be a rock solid convincing correlation that shows the time dilation effect.   And if that is not enough one could continue to minutia levels of detail.   One could also research all the mathematics and physics underlying relativity and basically confirm the field equations themselves are valid.

But there is indeed a point where one must stop.   So yes, even though we routinely witness science working in engineered products, we ultimately we have to trust that the tools used by the lowest level scientists actually worked, that their methods were valid, that fundamental physics is correct, etc.   So if you wish to disregard the mountains of evidence at each level of abstraction and stick with the fact that ultimately we rely upon the veracity of human beings I grant you your point.

Now, drag yourself out of the absurd and compare science and religion.   In science/engineering one can do personal research down to a very low level of detail and continue to amass increasingly detailed empirical data.   If you have a problem with trust at the detailed levels you could achieve then you would have to believe science is engaging in some mass conspiracy.   In religion, all you have is human declarations.   Your research takes you from one opinion to another and never do you have empirical data or even a falsifiable hypothesis to test.

No comparison.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.42  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.41    2 months ago
In science/engineering one can do personal research down to a very low level of detail and continue to amass increasingly detailed empirical data.

Certainly. But it never happens. We trust our trusted sources.

I'm not assimilating science and religion. I agree with you completely about that fundamental differences.

I'm assimilating people's behavior. You, personally, think about thinking. Most people do not. Most people trust their trusted sources, and that's the end of it.

In this as in so many things, the choice of trusted sources is probably more tribal than considered, for most people.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.43  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.31    2 months ago

Or defend/rationalize it too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.42    2 months ago

But the principle I noted remains true.

In science, the view of the scientist is irrelevant.   What matters is what the scientist can evidence (or, perhaps, prove) not what the scientist declares.

In religion, the view of the authority is all that matters.   Necessarily so since nothing can be evidenced.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.45  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.44    2 months ago

As I said, science and religion are very different... but the behavior of their faithful is quite similar.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.46  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.26    2 months ago
The bible also describes abortion and does not prohibit that either. 

And yet, some pro-lifers use the bible as justification to prohibit abortion rights. It bogles the mind the level of mental gymnastics some people will do to rationalize their position or beliefs.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @5    2 months ago
The economic benefit of owning other human beings as property was substantial motivation

Is this a new type of prosperity gospel?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2    2 months ago

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif 

Maybe an old type.   “Send me a slave and God will bestow blessings upon you.”

 
 
 
CB
6  CB     2 months ago

I am going to let you all have this all to yourselves. I was going in, but nope. Enjoy!

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  CB @6    2 months ago

A wise choice given your position on the subject of biblical slavery.

 
 
 
CB
6.1.1  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 months ago

A wise choice indeed.  "Poof" Oh look! The biggest bag of popcorn ever just appeared out of thin air next to me. I will watch through this safety glass door on my side.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @6.1.1    2 months ago

Hopefully nobody throws a shoe thru the safety glass. :)

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
7  Hal A. Lujah    2 months ago

Using the Bible to justify anything is insane.  Lionizing the most prolific mass murderer ever conceived is insane.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1  katrix  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7    2 months ago

Men have always invented their gods to mirror the times in which they live.  So it's not surprising that the biblical god condones slavery, child abuse, etc.  That's what the men who created the character knew as regular life.

 
 
 
katrix
7.2  katrix  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7    2 months ago

Some people used the story of Ham to claim that black people were cursed and therefore deserved to be enslaved. 

Of course, anyone with a clue knows that people migrated from Africa to the Middle East, not the other way around, but then ... that's what happens when you take a book of myths seriously.

 
 
 
zuksam
8  zuksam    2 months ago

The Bible and Christianity were "Also" used to Condemn Slavery. If there's one thing we can be sure of in this world it is that people will twist things to support their agenda, it doesn't matter if it's the Bible or the Constitution or the words of a respected person or whatever, people will nitpick what they can use to support their cause or condemn another's cause while ignoring anything that doesn't. It isn't much different than the Headline Propaganda used by the Media today, you make a bold statement in the Headline (which is all most people will ever read) but the facts of the story really doesn't support the Headline but that doesn't matter because the Sheeple are controlled by a never ending stream of false or half true Headlines. 

 
 
 
zuksam
8.1  zuksam  replied to  zuksam @8    2 months ago

The Abolitionist Movement was for the most part made up of Church and Religious Groups (guess what Religion). The Abolitionist Movement became increasingly prominent in Northern Churches beginning in the 1830s. Guess what Lincoln didn't free the Slaves two million White Christian Union Soldiers did.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2  TᵢG  replied to  zuksam @8    2 months ago
If there's one thing we can be sure of in this world it is that people will twist things to support their agenda ...

The Bible never condemns the practice of owning a human being as property.   That fact is not twisting anything.  It is a fact.

Another fact is that at many points in the Bible Yahweh makes rules for proper enslavement.   No twisting, you can read the words yourself such as:

Exodus 21:20-21 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

No doubt, however, that people operating as true Christians (love thy neighbor) would take that essential message attributed to Jesus and use it to combat slavery.   So I very much agree that essential Christian beliefs of love are entirely at odds with slavery.   But I disagree with ignoring the balance of the Bible (see above).   Also, note that even in the kinder, gentler NT even Jesus never condemned as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property and that practice was replete in his period.

Finally, note that this absence of divine moral guidance in the Bible continues even to modern times.   Imagine the effect on the history of enslavement if the Bible actually did condemn the practice of slavery as immoral.   But, demonstrably, it did the opposite.

 
 
 
zuksam
8.2.1  zuksam  replied to  TᵢG @8.2    2 months ago

Does it say anything about any particular race being more worthy of enslavement ? The article says "The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery". It doesn't bother to mention that many cultures practiced slavery including the very tribes that the African Slaves were from including the tribes that were selling most of the African slaves to the slave traders who shipped them to America. If we're going to talk about the morality of slavery and assign blame then we should consider that the African Slaves that were brought to America didn't believe slavery was wrong either because they were from a slave holding culture. At least we did away with slavery while slavery is still practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East. But these are the types of facts that must be ignored when someone is trying to demonize The White Christian Devil as if they are the root of all evil and the world would have been perfect in every way if only they hadn't screwed it up. The fact is slavery was fairly wide spread and generally accepted back then in most parts of the world by religious and non-religious peoples, you'd have to search pretty hard to find a culture that didn't practice some form of slavery at some point in history. So if we're going to assign blame we should blame all of Mankind for Slavery.

 
 
 
bccrane
8.2.2  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @8.2    2 months ago

It does say in that if the slave dies as a direct result of the beating the owner would surely be punished, now as for the second part the owner, in order to avoid the punishment, would damn well make sure the slave survives, there also needs to be a time limit, the slave while still injured, could go back to work and get kicked in the head by a donkey.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  zuksam @8.2.1    2 months ago

If we were in Brazil then we could talk about slavery in Brazil. We are in the US (the great majority of us) so we talk about slavery in the US.

George McDuffie was the governor of South Carolina when he wrote the material quoted in the seed. He was presumably well aware that the credo of the United States is "all men are created equal".

Using the Bible as a rationale was his way of getting around that statement in the Declaration of Independence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  zuksam @8.2.1    2 months ago
Does it say anything about any particular race being more worthy of enslavement ?

No, I think Mc Duffie pulled that out of thin air.

The article says "The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery". It doesn't bother to mention that many cultures practiced slavery including the very tribes that the African Slaves were from including the tribes that were selling most of the African slaves to the slave traders who shipped them to America.

True.   Lots of people throughout history practiced slavery.   That is a bad thing, right?   Even if slaves themselves originally had slaves, slavery is still a bad thing.   I presume you agree with that so it is not clear why you made this point.

If we're going to talk about the morality of slavery and assign blame then we should consider that the African Slaves that were brought to America didn't believe slavery was wrong either because they were from a slave holding culture.

Sure.  Include everyone who participated in slavery.   Indeed, the ones who actually acted to enslave others are the ones to blame.   The Bible is simply a book that unfortunately gave these slavers (faux) divine justification for their deeds.

At least we did away with slavery while slavery is still practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Yes, societal evolution.   It is a good thing that human beings, for the most part, broke free of the mores and values of the ancient authors of the Bible.  I presume you agree with that too - that holding the Bible as the source for divine moral guidance is demonstrably a mistake.

But these are the types of facts that must be ignored when someone is trying to demonize The White Christian Devil as if they are the root of all evil and the world would have been perfect in every way if only they hadn't screwed it up.

Maybe.   Is that how you interpret my observation that the God of the Bible never condemned as immoral the practice of owning human beings as property??  If so, that is waaaaay off base.

The fact is slavery was fairly wide spread and generally accepted back then in most parts of the world by religious and non-religious peoples, you'd have to search pretty hard to find a culture that didn't practice some form of slavery at some point in history.

Indeed, I made that very point.   It makes perfect sense that ancient men would not condemn slavery as immoral since that is all they ever knew and it was the basis for their economy.   However, it makes no sense that God (the arbiter of objective morality) would not inform His creatures that slavery is immoral.   The Bible reads as though it was written by ancient men sans divine guidance based on a perfect understanding of morality.

So if we're going to assign blame we should blame all of Mankind for Slavery.

If you wish, but as you noted we have evolved to the point where most of mankind deems slavery to be immoral.  So blaming past slavers makes good sense and praising those who have grown to understand the gross immorality of slavery makes sense to me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @8.2.2    2 months ago
It does say in that if the slave dies as a direct result of the beating the owner would surely be punished, now as for the second part the owner, in order to avoid the punishment, would damn well make sure the slave survives, there also needs to be a time limit, the slave while still injured, could go back to work and get kicked in the head by a donkey.  

You are correct, it certainly does say that.   Per the God of the Bible, if you beat the shit out of your slave you better ensure that he (or she) does not die within a few days because then you are in trouble.   However, if the slave survives the beating, God says all is cool because, after all, the slave is your property.    You see that in the scripture, right?

Here is the key point of that passage:

... since the slave is their [master's] property.

God, here, is declaring that a human being is the property of another.    What do you have to say about God clearly recognizing a human being as another's property and, due to that, okaying a qualified beating of the slave.   The arbiter of objective morality never even hints that it is immoral to own a human being as property.   That is a bit troublesome, eh?   Is that a good moral lesson for people to follow?    Is God wrong or, as some have actually tried to argue, does this mean that the owning of another person as property is not necessarily immoral?

 
 
 
zuksam
8.2.6  zuksam  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.4    2 months ago
I presume you agree with that too - that holding the Bible as the source for divine moral guidance is demonstrably a mistake.

Only if you believe that everything written in the Bible was written by God which I don't. Most Christians understand that the Bible includes many laws of Man written by Man three thousand years ago and they don't follow those laws. Christians have evolved. When was the last Christian Stoning you heard about. Todays Christians may speak about their Values and promote Bible based Morality but they leave final Judgement up to God. The Bible as a Moral Guide is still better than most of what's out there and certainly better than nothing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  zuksam @8.2.6    2 months ago
Only if you believe that everything written in the Bible was written by God which I don't.

If one omits a passage attributed to God by the Bible then sure, one can read the Bible any way one wishes.   But then one should ask why any part of the Bible would be considered the word of God.   In other words, if one rejects some 'God said this' parts of the Bible but accepts other 'God said this' parts, then the believer is pretty much admitting that the Bible is not divine.   Either that or the believer presumes special knowledge to filter out the parts that incorrectly speak for God.

But cherry-picking does not help when it comes to omission.   The Bible never condemns as immoral the owing of a human being as property.   Even when that practice was replete ... no way to overlook it.  

Most Christians understand that the Bible includes many laws of Man written by Man three thousand years ago and they don't follow those laws.

I agree.   Most modern Christians largely overlook the OT entirely.   So when they see passages that ostensibly contain quotes from God, they dismiss them as ancient men pretending to speak for God.   I applaud that kind of reasoning.

But that does not change the point I made.   The Bible is an easy excuse for those who seek to justify slavery.   Do you disagree?

Christians have evolved.

Absolutely.   I emphatically make the very same point.   But, again, that does not change the Bible.

The Bible as a Moral Guide is still better than most of what's out there and certainly better than nothing.

Have you read the OT recently?   (The general NT meme of Jesus, however, is a good moral guide.)   I would strongly dissuade people from relying upon the Bible itself for moral guidance.

 
 
 
zuksam
8.2.8  zuksam  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.7    2 months ago
would strongly dissuade people from relying upon the Bible itself for moral guidance.

Most people who rely on the Bible for moral guidance go to Church for interpretation. As far as the Bible being an excuse for slavery man has never needed an excuse most slave holders never read a Bible and most people who have read the Bible have never had a slave.

 
 
 
zuksam
8.2.9  zuksam  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.7    2 months ago

Also most of the rules and laws in the Bible don't say "God said" it's usually religious leaders who say everything is from God or God approved or he wouldn't have allowed it to be included in the Bible.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.2.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  zuksam @8.2.8    2 months ago
Most people who rely on the Bible for moral guidance go to Church for interpretation.

Indeed. And this usually means that they are in fact going to the preacher for moral guidance.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  zuksam @8.2.9    2 months ago
Also most of the rules and laws in the Bible don't say "God said"

Not really the point.   I was referring to the points where the Bible states 'God says'.   Case in point, Exodus 20 (the 10 commandments) and Exodus 21 (from which we find some of the rules for proper enslavement).

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  zuksam @8.2.8    2 months ago
As far as the Bible being an excuse for slavery man has never needed an excuse most slave holders never read a Bible and most people who have read the Bible have never had a slave.

Do you recognize that the OT condones slavery?   Do you recognize that the Bible never condemns the owning of human beings as property?

 
 
 
CB
8.2.13  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.2.11    2 months ago

1. Who among this assemblage is prepared to state that an infinite God should and could operate on a finite creature's morality scale?

2. Some are absolutely saying (in a cloud of words) the Jewish G-d does not exist, because for said G-d to exist, G-d would be immoral—on account of not denouncing slavery in Ancient Israel.

3. Are these individuals prepared to explicitly state:

  1. Ancient Israel made themselves a (idol) God out of 'whole cloth' ("God didn't say'), and
  2. Ancient Israel were an immoral people for participating in the institution of slavery?

John, I hope you don't mind, I finished by everlasting bag of popcorn after many amazing handfuls. I ask permission to kindly join the discussion! I have some 'fat' to try and cut through!

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8.2.13    2 months ago

Does God, per the Bible, consider it moral for one person to own another as property?

 
 
 
CB
8.2.15  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.2.14    2 months ago

As I suspected: The Rook falls silent.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8.2.15    2 months ago

The topic is the (faux) justification of slavery by the Bible (and Christianity).   You want to debate whether or not we can determine if God is moral?   Write an article.   The only aspect of your post that seems (in my opinion) relevant to the topic (partially) is this:

Ancient Israel were an immoral people for participating in the institution of slavery?

My answer is that anyone who owns another human being as property is engaging in an immoral act.

Do you think it is moral for a human being to own another as property?

-similarly-

TiG @8.2.14 - Does God, per the Bible, consider it moral for one person to own another as property?

A question you ignored while complaining that I ignored your off topic (in my opinion) comment.

 
 
 
bccrane
8.2.17  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.14    2 months ago

To answer your question, I would have to say yes.  

Consider the alternative, slaves were more than likely spoils of war and the Hebrews were already well known for slaughtering their enemies completely, so if you ended up a slave you were lucky indeed, you were alive, working, fed, clothed, and sheltered.  Slaves also gave the Jewish people prosperity and security to insure the people who held God's word a path into the future.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @8.2.17    2 months ago
To answer your question, I would have to say yes.  

It seems that way to me too.   If God, per the Bible, considered slavery to be immoral then condoning it is a contradiction and never condemning it is inexplicable given God made all sorts of rules for far lesser things.

Consider the alternative, slaves were more than likely spoils of war and the Hebrews were already well known for slaughtering their enemies completely, so if you ended up a slave you were lucky indeed, you were alive, working, fed, clothed, and sheltered.  Slaves also gave the Jewish people prosperity and security to insure the people who held God's word a path into the future.

I agree that at the time, slavery was critical to an economy and being a slave (regardless of the immorality) was not the worst fate of a human being.   But, unfortunately, since the Bible never offers any moral guidance against slavery, the McDuffies of history were able to exploit the Bible to justify their immoral acts.   Long after societies had largely evolved out of iron age practices, the Bible remained unchanged and remained (by many) to be the divine word of a perfect God.   McDuffie is but one who took advantage of that.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.19  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.2.16    2 months ago

This article is 'littered' with your "assurances" the (faux) God of the Jews does not exist.  It sits in the background of most of the comments you have 'uttered' on this thread.

So, your answer is, "Yes" "anyone" including Ancient Jews who definitely owned slaves were immoral. Step up and hit it out of the park already.

I think it is not right for a human to own another person as property; but that is my local morality. I do not go around in any shape or fashion faux arguing with the Creator about matters too big for my breaches. Lest I find myself buck naked in chains reflecting on the meaning of karma!

But you continue to go right ahead doing that, you hear?

 
 
 
CB
8.2.20  CB   replied to  bccrane @8.2.17    2 months ago

Great insight. I could not have stated it better. In the Jewish "economy" enslavement of pagans were to consider them under a curse of sorts (from God). In fact, the whole enterprise of biblical slavery could be in some ways a curse (judgement; poverty; et ceteras).

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8.2.19    2 months ago
So, your answer is, "Yes" "anyone" including Ancient Jews who definitely owned slaves were immoral. Step up and hit it out of the park already.

Wrong.  You need to stop putting words in people's mouths.    This is what I wrote:

TiG @8.2.16 - My answer is that anyone who owns another human being as property is engaging in an immoral act.

Read carefully.   I should not have to break this down for you.

I think it is not right for a human to own another person as property; but that is my local morality.

Then you (now) disagree with the God of the Bible.   To your credit!   Stick with that.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.2.22  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  CB @8.2.19    2 months ago

It seems to me that what may have been considered moral thousands of years ago is not necessarily considered moral today, but what right have we to apply present-day standards to and judge those who preceded us by thousands of years?  When I was in Spain more than half a century ago would I have been right to disparage the Spanish Catholics because of the Inquisition, to berate those sitting next to me sipping wine at an outdoor cafe in Madrid of being of a faith that was complicit?  

 
 
 
CB
8.2.23  CB   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.2.22    2 months ago

Maybe you meant that to the other commenter?

I am not pulling rules out from the Old Testament (Torah) to denounce Israel and Christians with. I am not calling Ancient Israel an immoral slave owning people. I am not implicitly or explicitly stating God is immoral for allowing slavery in Ancient Israel while calling out other pagan (Canaanite) activities as rationale and "abomination" for why those people should be taken off of their lands.

 Time to stop dancing around the 'eight-hundred pounds gorilla' in the discussion. Talk plain, I say.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.24  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.2.21    2 months ago

The Jewish people/nation owned pagan slaves in Ancient Israel—no one else. So, how about some plain talk. 

You have my answer on your question. I reserve the right to keep it in its proper context @8.2.19.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.2.25  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  CB @8.2.23    2 months ago

Yeah, I may have meant that for another poster, not you.  Sorry, my mistake. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8.2.24    2 months ago
The Jewish people/nation owned pagan slaves in Ancient Israel—no one else.

Pretty sure nobody knows what point you are trying to make.  I surely do not.   

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.2.27  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.2.22    2 months ago

That comment may have been misdirected, and should be aimed only at those who disparage what happened thousands of years ago (exmple; the killing of Jesus), but lets just apply present day morals to present day situations, like these:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/07/slavery-is-still-alive-in-mauritania-can-a-new-court-ruling-help-change-that/?utm_term=.a08732e6e00f

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.2.22    2 months ago
It seems to me that what may have been considered moral thousands of years ago is not necessarily considered moral today, but what right have we to apply present-day standards to and judge those who preceded us by thousands of years? 

And that is precisely why I answered CB's question the way I did.   Note how he (purposely) worded his question:

CB @8.2.13Ancient Israel were an immoral people for participating in the institution of slavery?

He is asking if I consider ancient people categorically immoral because they owned slaves.   That of course is a bullshit question.   Might as well ask if the people were immoral because they killed others, screwed goats, etc.

My answers was:

TiG @8.2.16 - My answer is that anyone who owns another human being as property is engaging in an immoral act.

In other words, I am stating that the practice of owning another human being as property is an immoral act.   That does not mean the owner is categorically immoral or that the whole of ancient society is categorically immoral.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.29  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.2.28    2 months ago
 That of course is a bullshit question.

And that is a weak bullshit answer. You can not separate the practice of owning slaves from the people and their (faux, you say) God you are connecting them too. Moreover, you have implied numerous times on this thread that Ancient Israel has no existing G-d to write about in the Old Testament, but, and I paraphrase, the ancient people are just ancient men who wrote rules of slavery to suit themselves.

Right. I don't have to wonder. Ancient Israel did a great many things, including mass genocides under the direction of G-d. In modern times I can not approve of that. But, I'd be a fool to pass judgement on the Creator I serve. You on the otherhand, do not serve any such deity, so you are free to offer what you do.

And, on the otherhand, ancient Israelites never used chemical spreading weapons, nuclear blast weapons, or man-made carcinogens, and any host of life-taking materials and devices either.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8.2.29    2 months ago
You can not separate the practice of owning slaves from the people and their God you are connecting it too.

Sucks when your little ploy falls flat on its face, eh?

 
 
 
CB
8.2.31  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.2.30    2 months ago

I wonder if your little taunt will get deleted? That's all.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.32  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.2.26    2 months ago

Pretty sure you do, but definitely sure you will not admit it. What throws you, the words, "pagan slaves"? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8.2.31    2 months ago
CB @8.2.19 - I think it is not right for a human to own another person as property; but that is my local morality.
CB @8.2.29 - You can not separate the practice of owning slaves from the people and their (faux) God you are connecting them too.

You consider the owning of slaves to be immoral and you claim that if people engage in immoral acts then the people as a whole are categorically immoral.

Using your position with your reasoning, you consider ancient people who own slaves to be immoral as a people.  Do you still like your flawed reasoning?    

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8.2.32    2 months ago

No, I really do not know what you are trying to say.   Try to rephrase in clear English.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.35  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.2.33    2 months ago

 I will not even dignify that any further.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.36  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.2.34    2 months ago

IMPASSE.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.2.37  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  zuksam @8.2.1    2 months ago
Does it say anything about any particular race being more worthy of enslavement ?

“‘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.

42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 

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."

Leviticus 25:39-46

I think that's a clear "YES" answer to your question.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.38  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.14    2 months ago
Does God, per the Bible, consider it moral for one person to own another as property?

That question pertains to the morality of ownership.  If the morality of ownership cannot be applied universally to all things in creation, then isn't that a matter of law rather than a matter of morality?  Humans can treat each other immorally without ownership; suggesting that the question of ownership is not a question about morality.

The Bible indicates that owning something is acceptable.  The Bible does not indicate that humans are greater than any other part of creation, humans are not an exception.  I do not believe the Bible addresses ownership as a question of morality.

The American Civil War made the idea of freedom an objective moral principle; taking a person's freedom is immoral.  What does the Bible say about the morality of freedom?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.38    2 months ago

Well I am focused on one particular type of ownership - the ownership of a human being.   To me the morality of owning a human being is profoundly different from the morality (so to speak) of owning a goat, owning a cart or owning clothing.

To wit, the morality of ownership itself is too abstract for my interest.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.40  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.39    2 months ago
Well I am focused on one particular type of ownership - the ownership of a human being.   To me the morality of owning a human being is profoundly different from the morality (so to speak) of owning a goat, owning a cart or owning clothing. To wit, the morality of ownership itself is too abstract for my interest.

Ownership is a contract.  A contract (even one of ownership) is neither moral or immoral.  My point is that a contract does not excuse or release an individual from moral obligations toward other humans.  Any sort of contract does not allow an individual to mistreat, cheat, mislead, or otherwise abuse other humans.

An employment contract is a form of ownership.  Just because an employer owns a contract does not allow that employer to mistreat or cheat employees.  The contract does not release the employer from moral obligations toward employees.  The contract is neither moral or immoral; using a contract to justify mistreatment is immoral.

Changing a slave into an employee only changes the type of contract but does not in any way alter the moral obligations of the individual who owns the contract.

A free individual has ownership of themselves; does that make a person a slave to themselves?  Is self ownership moral?  So, the pertinent question is not about the morality/immorality of owning a human being.  The question is really about morality/immorality concerning freedom.  Was the American Civil War fought so that slaves could own themselves or so slaves would have freedom?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.41  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.40    2 months ago
Ownership is a contract. 

An immediate example to disprove that:  slaves acquired as spoils of war are not in a contractual relationship unless you go to the extreme and say that they do have a choice:  live as a slave or die.

You realize that you are trying to argue that it is right to own another human being as property.   Seems to be an act of futility.

The question is really about morality/immorality concerning freedom.  Was the American Civil War fought so that slaves could own themselves or so slaves would have freedom?

Let us not incrementally step from the subject.   Ownership of a human being as property means total control over the individual.   The right to use the individual as you see fit (within certain rules of society) including the right to sell the individual, buy new individuals and pass individuals on to one's heirs as part of an inheritance.    It is difficult for me to take seriously any attempt to suggest that the owning of a human being as property is moral.   Further, I would not recommend publicly arguing (directly or tacitly) that slavery is moral.

 
 
 
JBB
8.2.42  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.2.27    2 months ago

The best I can tell the ancient Israelites thought being slaves sucked...

That being enslaved was a bad bad thing but enslaving others was cool.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.2.43  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @8.2.42    2 months ago

The only slavery I know of that exists today is what I linked about Mauritania, and also ISIS enslaving Yazidi and other girls and women who are not Muslim, saying that the Q'oran approves of it. There were lots of things that were common thousands of years ago but I thought that the topic of this article was about a situation more current than that. 

 
 
 
JBB
8.2.44  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.2.43    2 months ago

A Chinese sex slave ring was just busted in Florida a week ago...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.2.45  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @8.2.44    2 months ago

Really?  In Florida?  You mean that America STILL has slavery?

 
 
 
luther28
9  luther28    2 months ago

The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery

Were?

Some still utilize the bible today to justify their nonsense, ie: Can you say Ray Moore?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
10  Nerm_L    2 months ago

The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery?  Yeah?  It seems that science, secular philosophy, democratic government, and economic principles were also used to justify the institution of slavery.  The institution of slavery was older than Christianity.  In fact, the institution of slavery was older than recorded human history since the first recorded history includes descriptions of slavery.

People don't seem to understand why the American Civil War was such an important turning point in human history.  And the importance of that pivotal moment in human history is being lost because the profoundly ignorant think they are owed something of insignificant value.  

 
 
 
katrix
10.1  katrix  replied to  Nerm_L @10    2 months ago
People don't seem to understand why the American Civil War was such an important turning point in human history

Plenty of other countries had outlawed slavery before our Civil War happened.

 
 
 
zuksam
10.1.1  zuksam  replied to  katrix @10.1    2 months ago

plenty of other countries continued to allow slavery long after our Civil War ended including the areas in West Africa where most American Slaves came from.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  zuksam @10.1.1    2 months ago

But this discussion concerns America

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Nerm_L @10    2 months ago

The point is....the Southern Baptist Convention used the Bible to justify slavery. I believe that is one of the reasons why they formed their own convention

Just what I thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

The word Southern in Southern Baptist Convention stems from it having been organized in 1845 at Augusta, Georgia, by Baptists in the Southern United States who split with northern Baptists over the issue of slavery, specifically whether Southern slave owners could serve as missionaries
 
 
 
JBB
10.2.1  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2    2 months ago

The Southern Baptist Convention did not disavow slavery until 1995...

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10    2 months ago
The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery?

Not so sure about Christianity (seems entirely wrong to blame the tenets of Christianity for slavery), but there is no doubt that the Bible (which condones slavery and never, ever condemns as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property) was used to justify slavery.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @10.3    2 months ago

Mc Duffie specifically invoked Christianity as a sanctioning authority for slavery

Under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations of our religion, domestic slavery existed with the unequivocal sanction of its prophets, its apostles and finally its great Author.

Because someone used Christianity as a rationale doesnt mean Christian principles are guilty, it means the slaveholder thought mentioning Christianity would justify him.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @10.3.1    2 months ago

Seems to be a weak argument by McDuffie.  Especially since (as I noted) the tenets of Christianity if anything are at odds with slavery — 'love thy neighbor'.   Too bad Jesus never condemned slavery as immoral — look at all the faux justification that could have been prevented.   Instead Bible followers are left with the mores and values of bronze and iron age men -stated clearly in OT scripture as rules from God- who probably never even considered the idea that owning another person as property is immoral.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
10.3.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.3    2 months ago
Not so sure about Christianity (seems entirely wrong to blame the tenets of Christianity for slavery), but there is no doubt that the Bible (which condones slavery and never, ever condemns as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property) was used to justify slavery.

Marriage was consistent with the idea of slavery.  The relationship between parents and children were and still are consistent with the idea of slavery.  Benevolence isn't intended for those of greater status and means; the tenets of Christianity promotes the idea of benevolence and charity by the master toward the slave.

The United States did not simply outlaw slavery.  The American people confronted slavery on the field of battle and defeated slavery.  Americans sacrificed themselves for the ideal of freedom.  The American Civil War transformed slavery into an objective moral wrong and elevated freedom to an objective truth as a principle of morality/ethics.  That had never happened before in human history.  That's why the American Civil War is a pivotal moment that should not be written out of history.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.3.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @10.3.3    2 months ago
That's why the American Civil War is a pivotal moment that should not be written out of history.

Who wants to write the Civil War out of history?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.3.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @10.3.3    2 months ago

Let's not go overboard. The US was very late among Western nations, in doing away with slavery. Great Britain did this in 1805, and began hunting slave-ships in 1835.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
10.3.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.3.5    2 months ago
Let's not go overboard. The US was very late among Western nations, in doing away with slavery. Great Britain did this in 1805, and began hunting slave-ships in 1835.

Late?  I think not.  Colonies began outlawing slavery before there was a United States.  The United States outlawed slavery in half the country before the Constitution was ratified.  The United States outlawed the African slave trade in 1808, less than two decades after the Constitution was ratified.

The United States is a young nation compared to Great Britain.  It did not take centuries for the United States to begin outlawing slavery, unlike Europe.  What was Europe's excuse?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.3.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @10.3.6    2 months ago
Colonies began outlawing... 

Some colonies...

Slavery was not abolished in the whole country until 1865.

Before the American Revolution, American history and British history were the same. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
11  Tessylo    2 months ago

'It seems that science, secular philosophy, democratic government, and economic principles were also used to justify the institution of slavery.'

What the what?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
12  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

Here is a quote about this material that may add some context to the messgae

512

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13  tomwcraig    2 months ago

So, what was used to justify slavery by the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, Ancient Arabs, and modern Arabs?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
13.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  tomwcraig @13    2 months ago
So, what was used to justify slavery by the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, Ancient Arabs, and modern Arabs?

Racism, hate, demonizing those of other races and faiths, but the reality is, they didn't need to "justify" it back when everyone was doing it. But a thousand plus years later after people considered themselves "civilized" and went through a period of enlightenment and slavery was mostly abandoned by people and cultures. The few left that kept slavery then had to "justify" it and they often did so using the bible to claim their right to continue such a horrid practice and to continue their racism, hatred and the demonizing of other races and faiths.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.1  tomwcraig  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @13.1    2 months ago

So, please explain serfs, then.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
13.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  tomwcraig @13.1.1    2 months ago
So, please explain serfs, then.

Do you really want a dissertation on serfdom?

Suffice it to say, while serfdom was a form of debt bondage and a serfs debt could be sold and traded which effectively meant the serfs were sold and traded, it was a bare step up from full bondage where serfs often lived on and worked their Lords lands in exchange for a roof and a small farm to grow their own food. It was also in decline in many places starting in the 12th century and became even more rare after the Renaissance, though admittedly it did persist until the 19th century.

Does any of that change a word I said above? Nope. Slavery was in decline for centuries before the Southern preachers were trying to justify owning slaves using the bible. Austria banned serfdom in 1781 and it was abolished in Russia in the 1860's just before our own civil war and abolishment of slavery.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @13.1.2    2 months ago

And, with those answers you should have seen WHY I asked the original question.  Serfdom was a form of slavery that was justified by a landowner "protecting" his serfs and therefore being their "lord".  The Bible was being used as a justification just as landowners in the Dark Ages justified having serfs to work their lands.  The Romans justified owning slaves as prisoners of war for the most part and criminals for the rest.  Just as African slaves in the Americas were justified as originally being prisoners of war sold to slavers by rival tribes and then sold again since they were already slaves and sold to begin with.  In fact the only justification for slavery is really the typical excuses of bad behavior, anything and everything is used as long as it seems logical.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
13.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  tomwcraig @13.1.3    2 months ago
Serfdom was a form of slavery that was justified by a landowner "protecting" his serfs and therefore being their "lord".

It seems that you're defending the use of the bible as a defense of slavery by saying "Yeah, well other things were used to defend slavery too". I've never denied that "other things" have been used, but that doesn't change the fact that one of those "things" was the bible and it's apparent condoning of slavery.

So far the excuses I've heard have been "ancient times were different", "everybody was doing it", and "there were many reasons used to defend slavery". None of those excuses change the fact stated in the headline, "The bible and Christianity were used to justify slavery".

Now, you can do all the mental gymnastics you want in order to defend something you've already made up your mind to trust and believe, that's up to you. But claiming there is any valid excuse for owning humans as well as their children and children's children as the laws in the bible allow is just morally reprehensible from a humanist standpoint at any time in any place.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.5  tomwcraig  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @13.1.4    2 months ago

And, you aren't getting the point.  EVIL people will use whatever justification is needed to commit evil deeds and use things like The Bible, religion, and whatever else to justify those deeds.  Right now, the Democrats are justifying their lack of defending the United States' Southwestern border through the excuse of "It is evil to stop people from coming to the United States." and "There is no crisis according to the 2017 numbers."  Frankly, by refusing to do anything about our immigration system and fund the border, I believe they are committing Treason and should be arrested for doing so.  The reason I say Treason for this is that they swear "to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"; but they are refusing to carry out one of their primary duties in the Constitution which is to protect and defend the United States, its states, and territory. Hell, one such statement about defending the states has its own section:

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

By allowing thousands of immigrants to cross the border without any real punishment or even trying to slow them down, the Congress is condoning an invasion of the country and since many of these immigrants are members of MS-13 and other violent gangs from Central America, the Congress are promoting domestic Violence instead of protecting the states as is part of their duties.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
13.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  tomwcraig @13.1.5    2 months ago
EVIL people will use whatever justification is needed to commit evil deeds and use things like The Bible, religion, and whatever else to justify those deeds.

First, this isn't the case of people using something innocuous to commit evil deeds with. It's not as neutral as a gun. It condones slavery, which is why it was used to defend it. If it didn't condone slavery, I find it unlikely it would be used to justify slavery.

Second, what the hell does any of the rest of your post about immigration and rant about Democrats have to do with this seed?

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.7  tomwcraig  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @13.1.6    2 months ago

[deleted]  Did you actually READ AND THINK about what I was saying?  The overall point is that EVIL people will use and say whatever to hide their evil acts.  Not following your oath of office is an evil act and using excuses about why you are not following your oath of office is a means of hiding your evil acts.  It was all about reinforcing my point about slavers using anything to justify slavery.  You do realize that about half of the Bible was written and the entire thing compiled during Roman times when slavery was rampant, correct?  And, did you bother reading Exodus at all?  Where it essentially spells out the evils of slavery as the Jews were slaves of the Egyptians at the time despite having gone there at the invitation of the Pharaoh through Joseph?

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.2  TᵢG  replied to  tomwcraig @13    2 months ago
So, what was used to justify slavery by the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, Ancient Arabs, and modern Arabs?

Modern Muslims can use the OT and the Qur'an as justification.

Pre-OT civilizations no doubt justified slavery as 'good for the economy' (in different words of course).   They used slaves because slavery enabled them to accomplish things that would otherwise not be possible.   Basically the same justification one would use for invading and conquering others.

Why did you ask that question?

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.2.1  tomwcraig  replied to  TᵢG @13.2    2 months ago

I'll reply to you after Dismayed Patriot answers my latest request.  And, you partially came up with the answer to your question in your reply, TiG.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.2.2  tomwcraig  replied to  tomwcraig @13.2.1    2 months ago

TiG,

Read my 12.1.3 comment and you'll see the answer as to why I asked the question.

 
 
 
CB
14  CB     2 months ago

Economic prosperity (or lack thereof)  was the case in South Carolina and Georgia for wanting commercial slavery to enter those colonies—and it did so.

Another issue present for Ancient Israelites, different from specifically western modern times, when you defeated or vanquished an enemy in Old Testament times if you did not exterminate the enemy it would find its way back to its lands taken from it. And the processes of war would repeat!

Thus, a vanquished people, kept under controlled circumstances of permanent slavery, were rendered nationally ineffectual.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14    2 months ago

Slavery was indeed beneficial to the masters.   No question about it.   And the motivations differ across time and location.   The commonality, however, is the owning of another human being as property and the moral question thereon.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.1  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1    2 months ago

Whose morals are at issue here? God's//"ancient men"//modern man's?

Moreover, do take stock of what level we're playing on when/if you reply. We seem to be wavering between God/ OT Bible / Modern forms of slavery ("Mcduffie" style). These things did/do not behave the same and some separation is desperately called for!

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.1.1    2 months ago
We seem to be wavering between God/ OT Bible / Modern forms of slavery ("Mcduffie" style). These things did/do not behave the same and some separation is desperately called for!

Explain the difference then!

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.1    2 months ago
Whose morals are at issue here? God's//"ancient men"//modern man's?

The God character of the Bible.

Moreover, do take stock of what level we're playing on when/if you reply.

I have been talking about the God character of the Bible all along.   Never wavered a bit.   

 
 
 
CB
14.1.4  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.3    2 months ago

Well Tig, you are not the only one some of us are addressing back and forth. But let's let that pass. . . .

The article is premised on OT, modern commercial slavery, modern morality and mores, and rank racial bigotry in the mix.  God being relevant to the Old Testament soley out of the list. 

Thank you for setting, or resetting the stage. I will respond to you shorty.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.4    2 months ago
Well Tig, you are not the only one some of us are addressing back and forth.

So I weighed in on me.   Seems like a correct response to your post.   Why do you object?

God being relevant to the Old Testament soley out of the list. 

What was George McDuffie's primary source for justification?    

 
 
 
CB
14.1.6  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.1.2    2 months ago

So what is it you do again for these discussions?

 
 
 
CB
14.1.7  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.5    2 months ago

Okay, my comment was not a set up to ask a new question. (I needed away for a fine dinner!) Okay. . . .

What was George McDuffie's primary source for justification (of slavery in South Carolina)?

Dual purposes: An abuse of the OT God's name; and, as governor of South Carolina he had an utter need for economically cheap labor in South Carolina for the state's wealthy planters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.6    2 months ago

He engages logically, factually and honestly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.7    2 months ago
What was George McDuffie's primary source for justification (of slavery in South Carolina)?
Dual purposes: An abuse of the OT God's name; and, as governor of South Carolina he had an utter need for economically cheap labor in South Carolina for the state's wealthy planters.

You posed a source question and provided purposes as the answer.  jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
14.1.10  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.3    2 months ago
Whose morals are at issue here? God's//"ancient men"//modern man's?
The God character of the Bible.

You have declared God is almost certainly a character in a book. How do you figure a fictional character needs a logical explanation for its statements and actions?

In addition, if God is to use your words, 'almost certainly a character in a book,' why do you have expectation you can reason with this book?

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.10    2 months ago
How do you figure a fictional character needs a logical explanation for its statements and actions? ...  why do you have expectation you can reason with this book?

Your questions presume a need that I have never stated and pose a nonsensical notion of reasoning with a book.

I will answer the first one.  The second makes no sense.

How do you figure a fictional character needs a logical explanation for its statements and actions?

The character itself does not need anything.   But if one is evaluating a claim that this character is real without a shred of evidence then all one has is the description of the character itself.   One could use that description and see if it logically holds water.   If the character (as defined) is inconsistent (i.e. contradictions are found) then the claim that the character is real (as defined) is found to be false.  

 
 
 
CB
14.1.12  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.8    2 months ago

Your biased answer is noted. Now, Gordy?

 
 
 
CB
14.1.13  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.9    2 months ago

It is my answer after delving into the article above. There is not one thing driving this man, he gets a great many conclusions wrong here, because he wants to keep his slaves. So, he is willing to pull 'points' for his speech from numerous quarters.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.14  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.11    2 months ago

How do you plan to prove God (the biblical character to you) is immoral? You have stated it is most likely (or words to that effect) a Jewish character: What makes those people wrong for writing their national fiction as they wish it?

Is a member or group in of a society is obeying and honoring the laws of society is that person an immoral person?

How is an immoral law determined? By whom?

If humanity is free to think as it wills, then is it logically consistent that people can band together consensually to think anythng they wish and do it.

And that is just for starters. . . .

Good night.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
14.1.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  CB @14.1.10    2 months ago
You have declared God is almost certainly a character in a book. How do you figure a fictional character needs a logical explanation for its statements and actions?

If God is real, with the traditional attributes of omnipotence, ... then we can expect Him to be coherent. So... finding incoherence in the Bible is a Big Problem for inerrantists.

Even as readers of fiction, we expect an author to make her personages behave coherently. Not necessarily reasonably nor intelligently. Coherently.

So incoherence in the Bible is important, whether one is a believer or not.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.1.6    2 months ago

I guess you haven't been paying attention to my posts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.13    2 months ago
There is not one thing driving this man, ...

No doubt true.   But you questioned his primary source not his SOLE motivation.   Primary = main.   Source = source of the justification.

So, he is willing to pull 'points' for his speech from numerous quarters.

Sure.   Like any other human being he used several sources of information.   Where is this celebration of the obvious going?

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.14    2 months ago
How do you plan to prove God (the biblical character to you) is immoral?

Not planning to prove it.   That is not even my point.   My point is that the Bible defined a self-refuting main character.   This is just another example of that.   The arbiter of objective morality who is demonstrably interfering in the lives of His creations, making all sorts of nit-picking rules, directing them into battle, hardening hearts, killing the en masse, etc. never condemned as immoral the extremely common practice of owing others as property.

Was it because God was not capable of that feat as an omnipotent entity?   Could not figure out how to do it as an omniscient entity?  

I would argue that the God character of the Bible thought slavery was a good and proper practice.   The reason is because the character was invented and defined by bronze and iron age men who had never seen anything other than slavery in their lives (and in their history).   To them slavery was simply the normal way of life.  So of course the God they invented would not declare the basis of their economy to be immoral.   The notion of immorality likely never even entered the minds of the biblical authors.

So let's assume that the God character of the Bible considers owning human beings as property to be an acceptable, morally right practice.   Do you consider the God character of the Bible moral in His support for owning human beings as property?

( I predict that you will dodge the question. )

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.14    2 months ago
You have stated it is most likely (or words to that effect) a Jewish character: What makes those people wrong for writing their national fiction as they wish it?

I have not suggested the Jewish people are wrong (as in immoral).   Ancient people were products of their time.   In their relative morality I suspect most of them behaved in a moral fashion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.14    2 months ago
Is a member or group in of a society is obeying and honoring the laws of society is that person an immoral person?

By definition of relative morality, if a member of a group abides by that group's relative morality they are behaving in a moral fashion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.14    2 months ago
How is an immoral law determined? By whom?

Each group (where group definitions vary) could (and often does) have its own relative morality.   This relative moral code is typically drawn from what the group has grown to understand to be 'proper behavior'.   No doubt it is assembled by one or a few members and presented to the group (either as edict or for approval).  The morality of Islam, for example, starts with the Qur'an (ostensibly the dictates of a single prophet) but then it varies per group as other 'wise' holy men offer their interpretations.

Objective morality, in contrast to relative morality, would necessarily come from THE supreme entity.   If no supreme entity exists, then there is no objective morality and all of morality is simply relative.   If one does exist but never communicates objective morality in a verifiable, coherent form then it does not matter if objective morality exists because nobody knows what it is.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.22  CB   replied to  Bob Nelson @14.1.15    2 months ago

First, let's establish once and for all, for atheists, God is a character in  a book. Thus, all "if God. . . " are off. The law of non-contradiction steps in.

Next, for atheists, the Jewish leaders wrote a set of books (and postures the set of books as "sacred") for Jews. 

Next, for atheists, the Jewish leaders set up national rules for pagan slaves and Jewish slaves. 

So any coherence in the OT, for atheists, is a luxury, because the main thrust of the set of books is one long-running lie: That is, "God SAYS."

For atheists, the Torah/OT is a set of incredulous, unreliable, irresponsible, immoral, prevaricating, inconsistent, . . . books of limited real value. Bob, what do you do when you find such books? You put it down and walk away. That is what you would do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.14    2 months ago
If humanity is free to think as it wills, then is it logically consistent that people can band together consensually to think anythng they wish and do it.

Correct.   Relative morality.   So ancient people could hold by a set of rules (one of which is: 'it is okay to own another human being as property') and be perfectly moral according to their norms and values.

See, Cal, if you argue in terms of the ancient writers of the Bible (and not in terms of a real God) then it is extremely easy to see why the Bible never condemns the owning of human beings as property.   What else would you expect of these ancient authors?   And when we see errors / contradictions in the Bible and in the definition of its God character we attribute that to human error and the process by which the Bible came to be (over thousands of years of writing, re-writing, editing, loss of content, natural language translation, etc.).

The problem comes when someone breaks free of the prose and deems the character of the Bible to be real.   As soon as one does that, by the very definition of the character, logic comes into play.   No longer can human error explain away the contradictions - the definition of the character must now stand on its own.  And this character, as defined, does not survive the scrutiny of logic.   It is a self-refuting character and thus does not exist (as defined).

In other words, a god may indeed exist, but it is not the God as defined by the Bible because that god is a contradiction.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.22    2 months ago
God is a character in  a book.

No, the biblical God is a character in a book.   That does not mean there is no god.

Next, for atheists, the ...

What is the point of all this other than to note that atheists do not hold the Bible divine (true!) and to declare out of thin air that atheists cannot and do not appreciate other qualities of ancient works like the Bible (false!)?   Presumption is a crappy source of knowledge.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.25  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.17    2 months ago
@14.1.4 CB

Well Tig, you are not the only one some of us are addressing back and forth. But let's let that pass. . . .

The article is premised on OT, modern commercial slavery, modern morality and mores, and rank racial bigotry in the mix.  God being relevant to the Old Testament soley out of the list. 

Thank you for setting, or resetting the stage. I will respond to you shorty.

That is what I wrote. I do not need a lesson in what I mean to get across. I know what I meant to write. Though, if you look again you will not see I am/was trying to get the bottom and separate the issues intertwined in the article.

But this is belaboring the point. This off-shoot discussion is what I hate most and wish to do less. We should not be here to parse mere words, for word sake! It is simply time-consuming and sapping.Give me the sake respect in these exchanges that you extend your fellows, and I will try my hardest to do the same with you.

I do not care about this line of exchange.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.25    2 months ago
We should not be here to parse mere words, for word sake!

This is about getting clarity.   You posed -directly to me- a question and answer that made no sense.  I explained to you why it made no sense.   You question McDuffie's source but then answer in terms of his purposes.   Proof:

CB @14.1.7:

What was George McDuffie's primary source for justification (of slavery in South Carolina)?

Dual purposes: An abuse of the OT God's name; and, as governor of South Carolina he had an utter need for economically cheap labor in South Carolina for the state's wealthy planters.

If you want to avoid people noting a problem with a post directed to them that makes your point unintelligible then use language that makes sense.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.27  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.18    2 months ago
Was it because God was not capable of that feat as an omnipotent entity?   Could not figure out how to do it as an omniscient entity?

Well, man is the steward of the planet, has material mind, hands and feet, and is desperately in need of purpose. So, why can't humanity do something constructive besides lay around and get diseased and fat. (For which, it would need (demand?) a cure?)

The notion of immorality likely never even entered the minds of the biblical authors.

Let's clear the air. The "ancients" lived in cities, had governments, administrations (officers), constructed dwelling, buildings, had cleansing rituals, invented "modern" weapons, and were sophisticated travelers, wrote laws, held professional positions from which some of our careers derive today . . . . They were not uneducated and unsophisticated.

In the Bible there are whole sections on what to consider moral and immoral (dos and don't) and the adjoining penalty when performed. Yes, morality was a big deal to a new burgeoning nation: Ancient Israel.

Your annoying habit of attempting to 'steer' me is nauseating. I could be rather enjoying our discussion, but then you TAG some personal paranoid remark upfront-inbetween-or at last to it and it ruins the tone and tenor of the exchange.

I have told you "for days" across several at-length discussion my moral conviction and view of God. WHAT THE HEAVEN DO YOU KEEP ASKING ME ABOUT FOR READ THE THREAD IT IS UP THERE ALREADY.

(I won't question your motivation for constantly asking the question anew.) My answer is the same—always. 

I do not get out ahead of my skis, trying to "out-moral" my Creator. That would be personally foolish and logically inconsistent.  For one thing (and you hate when I try to reason with you), I, nor you, get to see this world as God does. Meaning God is Alpha and Omega to the Believer, being nothing to the unbeliever.

Thus, God has seen slavery come into th world-serve its purposes- go out of the world- and, if need be, return at some later future. Logically, it is futile for a finite being (humanity) to sit in judgement of an infinite being (God).

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.27    2 months ago
Well, man is the steward of the planet, has material mind, hands and feet, and is desperately in need of purpose. So, why can't humanity do something constructive besides lay around and get diseased and fat. (For which, it would need (demand?) a cure?)

How in any way does that answer the questions you quoted:

TiG @14.1.18Was it because God was not capable of that feat [never condemned as immoral the extremely common practice of owing others as property] as an omnipotent entity?   Could not figure out how to do it as an omniscient entity?
 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.27    2 months ago
Let's clear the air.

I noted that the ancients likely never even considered that slavery is immoral.    Noting that they had their own relative morality is again stating the obvious (and not only is that uncontested, it has already been stipulated at least by me).   So, again, what does your 'answer' have to do with my question?

I have told you "for days" across several at-length discussion my moral conviction and view of God. WHAT THE HEAVEN DO YOU KEEP ASKING ME ABOUT FOR READ THE THREAD IT IS UP THERE ALREADY.

What are you talking about?   Which question, specifically, have I asked that is 'up there already'?   One cannot address vague complaints.

I do not get out ahead of my skis, trying to "out-moral" my Creator.

Were we not talking about ancients?   I am reading plenty of complaints but do not see the source of the complaint.   Where have I (or anyone for that matter) challenged you to out-moral your Creator?

Thus, God has seen slavery come into th world-serve its purposes- go out of the world- and, if need be, return at some later future. Logically, it is futile for a finite being (humanity) to sit in judgement of an infinite being (God).

'The lord works in mysterious ways.'   In other words, do not question that which does not make logical sense in the Bible.  Do not use your reasoning faculties.  If a proposed God definition appears to be a contradiction, do not question the veracity of the Bible.   Presume the Bible divine and just follow what other human beings tell you.

I consider that to be very poor advice.   As such, I will continue to challenge anyone who encourages people to put their critical thinking on hold.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.30  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.19    2 months ago
I have not suggested the Jewish people are wrong (as in immoral).   Ancient people were products of their time.   In their relative morality I suspect most of them behaved in a moral fashion.

The Jewish people in Ancient Israel owned pagan slaves. In your opinion, were the Jews right or wrong for owning slaves?

If you suspect that Ancient Jews behaved morally in owning other people, then how is they or their "God character" being implicated as immoral?

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.30    2 months ago
The Jewish people in Ancient Israel owned pagan slaves. In your opinion, were the Jews right or wrong for owning slaves?

In my opinion per my relative morality anyone who owns a human being as property is acting immoral.  Clearly, by most modern standards, their acts were immoral.   But, as I noted, to the ancients whose relative morality held that slavery is entirely normal and proper, they would not be immoral.   The ancient authors of the Bible were men of their time and most likely saw nothing immoral about owning other people.

This has already been established several times.

If you suspect that Ancient Jews behaved morally in owning other people, then how is they or their "God character" being implicated as immoral?

The God character is defined as the creator of everything and knower of all.   The God character is not defined as just another Hebrew, but rather that which would be the arbiter of objective morality.   The God character would not, accordingly, be subject to the mores and values of ancient people.   The God character, as defined, would set the rules for objective morality.   But the God character never did reveal this objective morality by informing His creations that owning another person as property is immoral. 

jrSmiley_85_smiley_image.gif

Thus either the God character held that slavery was moral or, as you hypothesize, He just did not want to tell them.  He was happy to give 613 rules (in the OT) with various levels of specificity - many highly detailed - and would readily interfere with the lives of the people.   But for some unknown reason God chose to not instruct His people that owning another person as property is morally wrong.   (mysterious ways)

And God has never weighed in on this.   So for thousands of years we have God condoning slavery and bigots like McDuffie exploting this fact to claim that God is okay with slavery.   If only God, while writing the rule against screwing the family goat, had mentioned the immorality of owning people too.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.32  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.20    2 months ago
By definition of relative morality, if a member of a group abides by that group's relative morality they are behaving in a moral fashion.

In this case, why do you repeatedly and forcefully make comments like this:

@8.2.4 TiG

Lots of people throughout history practiced slavery.   That is a bad thing, right?   Even if slaves themselves originally had slaves, slavery is still a bad thing  I presume you agree with that so it is not clear why you made this point.

Zuksam: If we're going to talk about the morality of slavery and assign blame then we should consider that the African Slaves that were brought to America didn't believe slavery was wrong either because they were from a slave holding culture.

Sure.  Include everyone who participated in slavery.   Indeed, the ones who actually acted to enslave others are the ones to blame.   The Bible is simply a book that unfortunately gave these slavers (faux) divine justification for their deeds.

Zuksam: At least we did away with slavery while slavery is still practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Yes, societal evolution.   It is a good thing that human beings, for the most part, broke free of the mores and values of the ancient authors of the Bible.  I presume you agree with that too - that holding the Bible as the source for divine moral guidance is demonstrably a mistake.

Care to clean up your answer again?

 
 
 
CB
14.1.33  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.21    2 months ago

You do not recognize any "supreme entity existing" (without evidence) so let us dismiss that portion in your delivery.

Each group (where group definitions vary) could (and often does) have its own relative morality.   This relative moral code is typically drawn from what the group has grown to understand to be 'proper behavior'.   No doubt it is assembled by one or a few members and presented to the group (either as edict or for approval).

Ancient Jews setup its group morality laws to include pagan and native slavery systems? As you state,

@14.1.20: By definition of relative morality, if a member of a group abides by that group's relative morality they are behaving in a moral fashion.

Then can you explain why you write this,

@8.2.16 - My answer is that anyone who owns another human being as property is engaging in an immoral act.

This is a logical contradiction, for both sentences can not be true in Ancient Israel.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.32    2 months ago
Care to clean up your answer again?

I have to clean up your understanding.   My answer remains quite clear as written.

  • Owning a human being as property (to most of us) is clearly immoral.
  • Owning a human being as property to most ancient people was likely considered to be moral (by them; per their mores and values).
  • Now, from a modern perspective, Owning a human being as property is clearly immoral.

What part of this confuses you?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.33    2 months ago
You do not recognize any "supreme entity existing" (without evidence) so let us dismiss that portion in your delivery.

Learn to read all of what people write without cavalierly dismissing parts.   Usually a comment needs all of its parts to be properly understood.

This is a logical contradiction, for both sentences can not be true in Ancient Israel.

I am amazed that I have to explain this to you ... again even.  

TiG@14.1.20By definition of relative morality, if a member of a group abides by that group's relative morality they are behaving in a moral fashion.

  This means that under the relative morality of a group, if a person abides by the rules of the morality they are by definition moral within that relative morality.  For example, under certain relative moralities of Islam it is perfectly moral to kill a daughter who has dishonored her family.   See?   

TiG@8.2.16 - My answer is that anyone who owns another human being as property is engaging in an immoral act.

  This means that under my relative morality, anyone who owns another human being as property is engaging in an immoral act.


So now super, super simple:

The ancient Hebrews no doubt believed slavery was moral per their mores and values.

Per my mores and values (when someone asks me my opinion) the owning of human beings as property is immoral.   

So by my mores and values the ancient Hebrew acts of slavery were immoral acts.   By their relative morality, their acts of slavery were perfectly normal and accepted.


I am confident any number of people here could explain this to you (and you could explain it to yourself) if you still do not 'get' it.   I, however, am done restating the obvious so move to something else.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.36  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.23    2 months ago
The problem comes when someone breaks free of the prose and deems the character of the Bible to be real.   As soon as one does that, by the very definition of the character, logic comes into play.   No longer can human error explain away the contradictions - the definition of the character must now stand on its own.  And this character, as defined, does not survive the scrutiny of logic. 
  • Do you know of any real God?
  • Do you have any hint of evidence for a real God existing?
  • Do you know all the logic available to and executable by a real existing God?
  • Do you know all the logic available to humanity, including any changes?
  • Laws of logic; are they conventions?
  • Is God restricted to human conventions?
  • For atheist, there is no God, thus logic may not be anything more than conventions and subject to change.
  • God, the supreme entity, can not be less rational (logical), less superior, and simultaneously be the sustainer of the laws of logic themselves.

    That is, if God wants a thing to be logical - is God authorized to make it so?
 
 
 
CB
14.1.37  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.24    2 months ago
No, the biblical God is a character in a book.   That does not mean there is no god.
14.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  CB "The Member Formerly Known as Calbab." @14.1.1    19 hours ago
I have been talking about the God character of the Bible all along.   Never wavered a bit.   

Are you "wavering" now?

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.37    2 months ago

I have no idea what confuses you here.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.36    2 months ago
Do you know of any real God?   

No evidence thus far.   

Do you have any hint of evidence for a real God existing?

Nothing that counts as bona fide evidence.

Do you know all the logic available to and executable by a real existing God?

jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif   Most likely not if we are talking about a supreme entity

Do you know all the logic available to humanity, including any changes?

No.  I do not claim omniscience.

Laws of logic; are they conventions?

Hell of a lot more than conventions.   They are mathematically proven constructs in a formal system.

Is God restricted to human conventions?

If by 'God' you mean the grandest possible entity then clearly no.

For atheist, there is no God, thus logic may not be anything more than conventions and subject to change.

You are totally confused about logic then - in addition to demonstrably (purposely?) not understanding atheism.

God, the supreme entity, can not be less rational (logical), less superior, and simultaneously be the sustainer of the laws of logic themselves. That is, if God wants a thing to be logical - is God authorized to make it so?

God (as in supreme entity) could do whatever God wishes.


I wonder if you will now deliver an actual point.   I am guessing it is a variant of:  'the Lord works in mysterious ways ... so just because none of this schtuff makes any logical sense does not mean the Christian God does not exist'.

Maybe something like this where one circumnavigates the intellect in order to 'understand'?:

 
 
 
CB
14.1.40  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.29    2 months ago

Read it. Moving on. Nothing of value for me there.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.41  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.31    2 months ago
Thus either the God character held that slavery was moral or, as you hypothesize, He just did not want to tell them. 

What means this? I have no idea how I got between you and your God-slave-morality 'concern.'

 
 
 
CB
14.1.42  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.31    2 months ago
This has already been established several times.

That is what you wrote to me; but then you turn around and go back over the same material.

 But for some unknown reason God chose to not instruct His people that owning another person as property is morally wrong.   (mysterious ways)

Earlier on you wrote this,

5  TᵢG    3 days ago
Given the amount of slavery (among other things) that are not condemned by the God of the Bible and given the fact that slavery is effectively condoned by God since He made rules for proper enslavement, it would seem impossible for future Bible-reading religious people to NOT justify slavery with the Bible.  . . . . And if God says it is okay, well, there you go.

Tig, which is it:

  1. Unknown.
  2. "Mysterious."
  3. Condoned, . . . with rules of proper enslavement.

Law of non-contradiction: This  can not be all three.

Is this God-character silent about the immorality of slavery in Ancient Israel; but 'vocal' about rules of proper slavery in Ancient Israel, making a clear choice or not?!

 
 
 
CB
14.1.43  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.34    2 months ago

What does a "modern perspective" have to do with this?  We who are living have plenty we can research and mull over in explanation of how we arrived at a modern perspective of slavery. This discussion is about the OT "God-character" as you call God, and Ancient Jewish morality/immorality for owning slaves.

Besides:

  1. Appeals to popularity are fallacious; thus, unhelpful. . . so,
  2. Atheists are relativists, for whom morals, when they exist in this community, are local and transitory (subject to change).

I am not confused by you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.42    2 months ago
Tig, which is it:
  1. Unknown.
  2. "Mysterious."
  3. Condoned, . . . with rules of proper enslavement.

Where did you get your three options?   

Anyway, as I have noted (what, a dozen times already?  more?) the Bible condones the owning of human beings as property.   How you could be confused about that is truly inexplicable.   

Is this God-character silent about the immorality of slavery in Ancient Israel; but 'vocal' about rules of proper slavery in Ancient Israel, making a clear choice or not?!

I think you need to read what I write.  My answers are quite clear.   You are asking simple questions for which you should already know the answer.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.43    2 months ago
I am not confused by you.

Good.  You should not be because I find nothing at all confusing in my answers.

Why you are demonstrably confused (or pretending to be confused) is something you need to figure out.   

Atheists are relativists, for whom morals, when they exist in this community, are local and transitory (subject to change).

If I took you seriously (and I no longer do) I would be offended by this derogatory sweeping generalization.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.46  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.43    2 months ago
Appeals to popularity are fallacious; thus, unhelpful. . . so,

Something else for you to look up since you clearly do not understand the application of the concept.  For example a statement such as ...

Owning a human being as property (to most of us) is clearly immoral.

... is not an appeal to popularity.   It is expressing the idea (I think it is also a fact) that most of us understand that slavery is immoral.   Give this stuff a little thought before you let your fingers touch the keyboard.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.47  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.35    2 months ago

It is clear that you can never be wrong; ad nauseam. All to happy to move on (for all the good it does). (To "pull a Tig,"  I expect you to respond to this comment.)

 
 
 
CB
14.1.48  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.38    2 months ago

Don't worry about it. Move on.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.49  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.39    2 months ago

Ad nauseam. When one is reduced to silliness one is losing the argument I have often heard. Moreover, insults (and silly emoticons) are not arguments. *Yawn.

And yet,  the law of logic are subject to change (though rare). And God (real as you would stipulate) certainly has not revealed God's logic to humanity. Consider humanity on a "need to know" basis with the supreme entity at this time.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.49    2 months ago
When one is reduced to silliness one is losing the argument I have often heard.

That does not surprise me. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.1.51  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @14.1.43    2 months ago
Atheists are relativists, for whom morals, when they exist in this community,

That statement is reeking of religious bigotry.

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.52  katrix  replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.1.51    2 months ago

All his posts are thinly disguised attempts to "prove" that atheists are immoral.  Rather funny since he's the one who condones slavery, and we don't.

 
 
 
MUVA
14.1.53  MUVA  replied to  katrix @14.1.52    2 months ago

Are you saying no atheist owned slaves?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.1.54  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @14.1.53    2 months ago

I don't see that in katrix's post.  Do you?  What I see is her accurate assessment of the situation - a theist wants to believe that the Bible is a good moral guide, so he defends the immoral within it, while simultaneously hinting that those who don't follow the Bible are immoral themselves.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.55  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.44    2 months ago

From your comments, Tig. You should recognize your own writings. That's all.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.56  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.45    2 months ago

Your insults mean nothing to me, Tig. Seriously. As a philosophical naturalist your moral system is simply what you say it is anyway.

There is no global moral system in your philosophical-naturalistic worldview. And, it begs the question that you are here day in and out seeking to persuade believers and unbelievers who will listen that logically they should live their moral life according to Tig.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.55    2 months ago

Feel free to quote me all you wish, I am content with what I write.   

What you should not do, however, is spin my words into distorted interpretations.   Pretending my words mean what you wish is intellectually dishonest.   

To wit, if you cannot come up with an effective rebuttal, choose to not respond rather than try to spin my words into something you can rebut.   I doubt you are fooling anyone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.58  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.56    2 months ago

At some point in time are you planning to make a point on the topic or are you going to continue to simply sprinkle personal meta throughout?

 
 
 
CB
14.1.59  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.57    2 months ago

Your quotes speak for themselves. Cope with the intellectual complexity of communicating with others.  Doubt?  I do not take your doubts seriously.

Care to get back on the topic of slavery? I am fired up and ready to go! (Smile!)

 
 
 
CB
14.1.60  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.46    2 months ago

"Most of us" means "my group of assembled confederates" because you clearly do not mean those who disagree with your collective's so-called, "moral" stance. Which can be all over the map, literally. Some of your collective call that, "free-thinking / free-thinkers."

You are asking me to hop on your bandwagon: Excuse me, I will not be jumping on that! Thank you, but no.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.60    2 months ago

You just now wrote this:

CB @14.1.59: Care to get back on the topic of slavery? I am fired up and ready to go! (Smile!)

Immediately followed by yet another personal meta, rather than topical, comment.   Maybe ask a moderator to explain to you the distinction between a topical comment and a personal comment.


"Most of us" ...

The following quote ...

TiG @14.1.34 - Owning a human being as property (to most of us) is clearly immoral.

... is referring to living human beings worldwide.   It is rare (as a percentage of the population) to find a person living today who actually thinks owning another person as property is or might be moral.

You are asking me to hop on your bandwagon: Excuse me, I will not be jumping on that! 

So you are not among those who hold that owning another person as property is immoral??   Slavery is NOT immoral??

 
 
 
CB
14.1.62  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.50    2 months ago

Why should it surprise you? I see no reason for you to be surprised!

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.62    2 months ago
TiG @14.1.61 - So you are not among those who hold that owning another person as property is immoral??   Slavery is NOT immoral??
CB @14.1.62 - Why should it surprise you? I see no reason for you to be surprised!

I think most people would be surprised by someone who rejects the position that owning another person as property is immoral.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.64  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.1.51    2 months ago

Do you agreed to global moral absolutism? No, you do not.

Do you agree that evolution is undirected (random)? Yes, you do.

Therefore, you agree that morality is what you SAY it is for you.

Afterall, there is no Being or afterlife to be responsible to.

I reject your 'charge' of religious bigotry. Be the free-thinking, critical-thinker you claim to be for consistency sake. That is, the law of contradiction prevents your being a moral absolutist and a moral relativist at the same time.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.1.65  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @14.1.64    2 months ago
Do you agreed to global moral absolutism? No, you do not.

And neither do you.  If you did, you'd condone slavery (and genocide, rape, stoning of homosexual men, and any number of other atrocities).

But at the same time, you defend a source of morality with which you yourself disagree.  On which, BTW, would condemn you to death.

You can reject my "charge" of religious bigotry, but statements that imply that atheists are immoral are examples of religious bigotry.  If you don't like that assessment of your comments, don't make comments that display religious bigotry.

 
 
 
Split Personality
14.1.66  Split Personality  replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.1.65    2 months ago

Amen, sister,amen.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.67  CB   replied to  katrix @14.1.52    2 months ago

Are you a moral absolutist, then? Or is your morality personal (What you SAY it is)?

As to your straw-man, let's knock it down. I am not interested in yours or any other atheist views of right and wrong, in and of themselves. I am simply and continuously going to point out that moral relativism is a local phenomenon when, and if, it occurs. 

For instance, for outlaws and other wild people living on the fringes by their own 'code' - they choose to live amoral existences that are neither global absolute or group relative, moralities. Such people use the morality of the moment and it is inconsistent.

Now then, the 'criminal code,' a law unto itself, is moral (right) for those in this group.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.68  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.1.54    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
14.1.69  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.61    2 months ago

Whatever Tig. When will you get it? You should not be able to bash religions and adherents of religion without exposing your worldview, beliefs, and otherwise points of view for inspection as a possible suitable alternative to that which you wish to erase.

Also, for the record, changing a belief system of another personal takes more than cold hard facts! People are devoted to their ideas—like you are!

No bandwagon for me. Drive on, driver!

Ancient Israel followed the laws on its books. One can not be wrong if one is following the law, can one?

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.70  katrix  replied to  CB @14.1.69    2 months ago
Ancient Israel followed the laws on its books. One can not be wrong if one is following the law, can one?

Laws do not equate to morality.  One can absolutely be wrong from a moral perspective, if one is following the law.

Here you go again, justifying atrocities that your god character condoned, commanded, and committed.

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.71  katrix  replied to  CB @14.1.67    2 months ago
Are you a moral absolutist, then? Or is your morality personal (What you SAY it is)?

Perhaps your obsession with labeling others is due to your trying to find a label for yourself.  I can't find any other reason for it, other than one which speaks very poorly about your character.

You've told us before, openly, that you are gay but you are fighting it because of your religion.  I think you're confused, you've been brainwashed into thinking you're evil when you know you haven't ever done anything to deserve that label, and so you're envious and threatened by those of us who don't have that abuse and fear instilled in us, and are comfortable with our being good people.  I will tell you this:  You are NOT evil. If this God you love created you, then he created your sexuality as well.  What God has done is good .  Think more about Jesus, who is the gateway to God. Jesus preached love and tolerance and acceptance.  Forget about Paul, who warped Jesus' message. 

Please talk to Enoch in Chaplains Corner, as TiG suggested.  I don't pray, but I just asked my mom to pray for you and help you find self-love, and steer you away from your path of loathing.  She's my go-to when someone needs a prayer.  I'll have to remind her every day, since she now has dementia, but she just prayed with me .. and I'll ask her aides to keep this going when they pray with her.  She told me to tell you that God is with you, and that He loves you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @14.1.71    2 months ago
I can't find any other reason for it, other than one which speaks very poorly about your character.

If one operates at a high enough level of abstraction (e.g. arguments in terms of labels/stereotypes) one has plenty of wiggle room.   Similarly, if one is vague or equivocates on the meaning of words, one engineers wiggle room.  

Hypothetically, this is what some might do when they realize they have a weak argument but are duty bound to make the defense nonetheless.

I think such a method fails miserably (because people are not fooled so easily) but that is my personal explanation for the reason.

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.73  katrix  replied to  TᵢG @14.1.72    2 months ago

Yep.  I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt, because it must be such a miserable way to live. Some people really do manage to fool themselves when they make useless arguments .. they're really not trying to convince others as much as themselves. 

I have an acquaintance like that, who will tell me he quit smoking as he lights a cigarette.  Or tell me he doesn't eat donuts either, if I turn down a donut he offers me, and say I don't eat them.   He must know full well that he isn't fooling me (or not?), but he seems to actually convince himself. 

I think the "agnostic atheist" term has led to some serious mental trauma and obsessions with labels.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.74  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @14.1.73    2 months ago
I think the "agnostic atheist" term has led to some serious mental trauma and obsessions with labels.

Imagine holding an untenable (irrational) position of certainty:  e.g.  'the God of the Bible exists (100% certainty; truth) and is the only true God'  while debating individuals who hold the position of:  'well I am not convinced that any god exists'.

Of course the theist will want to cast the atheist into an irrational box too so as to level the playing field.

And if the atheist is too smart to allow such an obvious ploy (and I am convinced most atheists are sufficiently smart) then the theist might become frustrated.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.75  CB   replied to  katrix @14.1.70    2 months ago

Your opinion is noted. An opinion was not what the question requested, nevertheless. They were called morality laws. Thus, these laws equates to do this and not that and you are, "OKAY!" (under authority of the state).

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
14.1.76  Colour Me Free  replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.1.65    2 months ago
That statement is reeking of religious bigotry.
If you don't like that assessment of your comments, don't make comments that display religious bigotry.

Atheism is not a belief systom, nor religion - albeit the First Amendment protects an atheists lack of belief, I am failing to see how 'religious bigotry' applies, let alone reek of it... the largest atheist organization is the Freedom 'from' Religion Foundation.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.1.77  sandy-2021492  replied to  Colour Me Free @14.1.76    2 months ago

Cal is implying that atheists are immoral, simply because they're atheists.  Oh, he won't say it outright, but he's made such implications often enough that those of us who converse with him frequently know what he's about.

That's religious bigotry - bigotry based on religion, or the lack thereof.  It is bigotry to say or imply that those who do not follow one's own religion are therefore immoral.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.78  TᵢG  replied to  Colour Me Free @14.1.76    2 months ago

Would you understand if she labeled it irreligious bigotry?   Certainly you understand the concept of a religious person making bigoted remarks against those who are not religious.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.1.79  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @14.1.78    2 months ago

Thank you.  "Irreligious bigotry" works, too. 

CMF, I guess I assumed that everybody would see "anyone who doesn't follow my religion is immoral" is religiously-based bigotry.  My bad.

And the Freedom From Religion Foundation frequently does good work, IMO.  It fights to prevent religious bigots from using government institutions to force their beliefs on others, such as through "Bible literacy" classes in public schools.  A goal in keeping with the First Amendment.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
14.1.80  Colour Me Free  replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.1.77    2 months ago
That's religious bigotry - bigotry based on religion, or the lack thereof.  It is bigotry to say or imply that those who do not follow one's own religion are therefore immoral.

Thanks Sandy, I can see how bigotry may be applied to said circumstances … I did not interpret CB's comment as such, yet I am not overly familiar with said members belief system … to me immorality is in the mind of the 'beholder' so to speak.  I grew up going to church '3 times a week' and twice on Sunday's - Pastor Foss did not feel he had the 'right' to judge another's morality .. his lessons remain with me, as I choose a path of spirituality.

So many strong words are tossed around .. I desired to understand your reasoning behind the use of religious bigotry .. thank you once again for your response ….

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
14.1.81  Colour Me Free  replied to  TᵢG @14.1.78    2 months ago

Think Sandy and I got it handled TiG ….  I understand a great deal TiG … yet when I have questions, I ask - Shirley ... you can understand that...?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.1.82  sandy-2021492  replied to  Colour Me Free @14.1.80    2 months ago

Thank you.  Cal and I (along with TiG, Gordy, and katrix), frequently discuss religion and morality.  Any time the morality of the Bible is questioned, Cal responds by attacking atheists as immoral.  If that doesn't work, he tries to squelch conversation by telling us that atheists have no right to discuss religious morals.

We all know the script by now.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
14.1.83  Colour Me Free  replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.1.82    2 months ago

I just needed clarification - I appreciate the civility a great deal, one of the reasons I have been a 'drop out' is the lack of civility to sincere questions - so many seem to view questioning others as an attack …… thank you once again...

 
 
 
CB
14.1.84  CB   replied to  katrix @14.1.71    2 months ago

Did you just invoke my lifestyle for your own purposes? You have some gall to give me advice katrix. I will accept prayer, because I am a prayer warrior too. Now, I will pray for you, for you need it even though you don't believe God exist at all in any shape, form, or fashion.

Tell your mother God loves her for her prayers for others and I wish her all the best in this life and beyond. Moreover, I pray for your understanding of those who are not like you, even as I pray for myself.

As for our mutual friend Enoch, I adore this man and his mind is a pleasure to be in touch with over the great distances. I do talk to Enoch as often as we can. Funny, my homosexual nature never comes up as a 'talking point' with in. How interesting is that?!

 
 
 
CB
14.1.85  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.1.72    2 months ago

Yeah, no "self-loathing' materialists 'wiggling around' here on Newstalkers. Please proceed. . . .

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.86  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.85    2 months ago

Try to get your mind out of broad brush personal attacks and maybe address one of dozens of questions posed to you that you have ignored.   That is, try engaging in debate on the subject matter instead of tossing poo.   Leaving is a good option too if you cannot muster rebuttals on the content.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.87  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.1.65    2 months ago

Simplistic nonsense. If only complex issues could be so simple. The problem here is not one of intellect, it is a nonacceptance of spirit.
But, steady on!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.1.88  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @14.1.87    2 months ago

If anyone here is making simplistic arguments, it's you.  You're the one insisting that atheists, because they don't believe in God (your god, of course, not any of the multitude of others), must have a moral compass based on survival of the fittest.

I'm an agnostic atheist.  That is only one aspect of the person that I am.  I am also a mother, daughter, sister, friend, health care provider, community member, and employer.  All of those roles influence my perception of morality, and are influenced by it.  I have family to provide for, friends to support.  I'm part of a community that both requires my input in the form of taxes and labor, and provides me with services such as education, emergency services, infrastructure, and social interaction.  My relationship with my patients is fiduciary - I am ethically required to act in their best interests, sometimes at the expense of my own interests.

You would reduce all of that to "she doesn't believe in God (and only the Abrahamic God), so she must just think anything goes".

And you call my comments simplistic.  Look to your own.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.1.89  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.1.87    2 months ago
Simplistic nonsense. If only complex issues could be so simple.

The immorality of owning another person as property is pretty straightforward.   Those who cannot clearly state that such an act is immoral need to shop around for a better source for moral guidance.   Maybe update from circa 6th century BCE sources to something maybe in the 21st century?

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.1.90  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.1.47    2 months ago
It is clear that you can never be wrong; ad nauseam.

That's because he never is wrong! Ad nauseum. Now you're getting it. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
14.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @14    2 months ago
if you did not exterminate the enemy it would find its way back to its lands taken from it. And the processes of war would repeat!

You do realize you're rationalizing slavery, right? It appears you've decided the bible to be infallible thus the slavery in the bible must be defensible instead of reprehensible. It comes down to this. Did everyone in ancient biblical history own slaves? If not, was it only because they couldn't afford them? Or were there some people who just didn't feel right about it even though it was an accepted practice? Or was there no sense of moral wrong by owning humans back then which is why you seem adamant about defending it?

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
14.2.1  Phoenyx13  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.2    2 months ago
You do realize you're rationalizing slavery, right?

it is amazing to me the mental gymnastics involved to rationalize slavery just due to a religious belief in a mystical unproven entity. Basically - some of these posters could rationalize murder of their own family as a great and moral thing if their religious belief dictated it. It's amazing how religion can twist some people into accepting immoral acts as completely moral and great to do to another human being.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
14.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Phoenyx13 @14.2.1    2 months ago
some of these posters could rationalize murder of their own family as a great and moral thing if their religious belief dictated it

All three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity all look to Abraham as a forefather and prime example of loyalty and devotion, a friend of God. That's the guy who heard whispers in his head telling him to take his son to the top of a nearby mountain, build an alter and sacrifice him to the God of the bible. Sure, his hand is stayed and an animal takes his sons place, but that's not really the point is it. The God of the bible demanded that kind of devotion, to be willing to murder your own child with a knife if it told you to. I'm not sure the religious telling me they're not hearing any voices yet so I shouldn't worry is all that comforting.

 
 
 
Split Personality
14.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.2    2 months ago
You do realize you're rationalizing slavery, right?

No, he's rationalizing survival of the fittest, winner take all,

evolution.

 
 
 
Split Personality
14.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @14.2.3    2 months ago

One could also argue that they defeated their own "victories" by breeding  with the captives.

Such is the pace of evolutionjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif.

Two steps forward, one step back.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.6  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.2    2 months ago

What part of my stated quote seems inaccurate to you, please share.

Next, it does not follow from my quote that I am "defending" slavery. Slavery existed as in institution in Ancient Israel; my feelings about that are irrelevant and superfluous.

It is not significant to me for this discussion to attempt to answer your questions—please supply your own answers if you wish, nevertheless.

Lastly, slavery as an institution began in 300 BC and continued in the west until 1880 in Brazil according to History World- Slavery Timeline. One should ask did all those generations of slave owning nations feel they were acting immoral?

 
 
 
katrix
14.2.7  katrix  replied to  Split Personality @14.2.4    2 months ago
One could also argue that they defeated their own "victories" by breeding  with the captives.

One could also argue that kidnapping and/or raping women from enemy tribes helped ensure genetic diversity back when tribes were smaller.  Otherwise small tribes would be at risk for inbreeding.  So ... not good for the women, but perhaps good for humanity at the time? 

 
 
 
katrix
14.2.8  katrix  replied to  CB @14.2.6    2 months ago

300 BC?  It began far earlier than that.  More like 3500 B.C.  It seems that once we evolved from our hunter gatherer stage to civilization, we began enslaving others fairly quickly. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.2.6    2 months ago
One should ask did all those generations of slave owning nations feel they were acting immoral?

They probably all thought they were moral per their own relative morality.   What difference does that make?

 
 
 
Split Personality
14.2.10  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @14.2.9    2 months ago

and all they had to do to legitimize it, was get someone to write it in a book.

 
 
 
Split Personality
14.2.11  Split Personality  replied to  CB @14.2.6    2 months ago
Lastly, slavery as an institution began in 300 BC

????????????????????

the current Hebrew year is 5779 and slavery predated that.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
14.2.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @14.2.6    2 months ago
What part of my stated quote seems inaccurate to you, please share.

"in Old Testament times if you did not exterminate the enemy it would find its way back to its lands taken from it. And the processes of war would repeat!"

Genocide and enslaving other nations was fairly common, but not the rule even long before ancient Israel as an invading army came in to the land of Canaan.

"it does not follow from my quote that I am "defending" slavery. Slavery existed as in institution in Ancient Israel;"

I did not say you were necessarily "defending" slavery, but you were rationalizing it by claiming they had to "exterminate the enemy" and keep them under control with "permanent slavery" as if they had no choice. You always have a choice as to whether you will accept ownership of another human or not.

" my feelings about that are irrelevant and superfluous."

Your feeling are what you are expressing, if they are so "irrelevant and superfluous", why share them?

"Lastly, slavery as an institution began in 300 BC and continued in the west until 1880 in Brazil according to History World- Slavery Timeline"

Slavery appears in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution and was known in ancient civilizations such as Sumer as far back as 3500bc. Slavery was almost unheard of in hunter/gatherer societies so likely did not become used on a large scale until after the invention of agriculture around 11,000 years ago. And the fact is, slavery is still alive and well today, though not currently condoned by any formal governments. But none of that changes the fact that the bible was used to justify slavery as the seed points out.

"One should ask did all those generations of slave owning nations feel they were acting immoral?"

I think the reality was that most people felt it was immoral for themselves and those who looked like them, but accepted the many justification when it came to other races and faiths.

As the Vice President of the confederacy Alexander Stephens pointed out, even our founders felt it "was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away". Stephens also stated that advances in science proved that enslavement of African Americans by white men was justified, and that it coincided with the Bible's teachings.

So this whole eluded to justification that they just didn't know any better or didn't think of it as bad or immoral when it was being justified with the bible is completely bogus.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.13  CB   replied to  katrix @14.2.8    2 months ago
Lastly, slavery as an institution began in 300 BC and continued in the west until 1880 in Brazil according to History World- Slavery Timeline.

I left off a zero. This should have read early as 3000 BC-ish. Thank you for the catch,

http://www.historyworld.net/timesearch/default.asp?conid=1061&keywords=Slavery

 
 
 
CB
14.2.14  CB   replied to  CB @14.2.6    2 months ago

DEPARTMENT OF OOPS!

"Slavery as an institution began in". . . 3000 BC-ish. (Thanks to katrix for catching my mistake.)

 
 
 
CB
14.2.15  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.2.9    2 months ago

Because it matters if the peoples of these slave owning nations viewed themselves as intentionally breaking the law of their lands and getting away with it!

 
 
 
CB
14.2.16  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.2.12    2 months ago
I did not say you were necessarily "defending" slavery, but you were rationalizing it by claiming they had to "exterminate the enemy" and keep them under control with "permanent slavery" as if they had no choice. You always have a choice as to whether you will accept ownership of another human or not.

And so what is there for me to rationalize? It is right there in the pages of the Bible, you were in church leadership so you should be able to find where Israel was told to destroy its enemies Joshua, or they would corrupt Israel from the inside (Judges) through the ways and activities these Canaanite peoples would bring in—including while serving in Israel's lands as slaves.

It is the ways, means, and understanding of war. Stop arguing just to express bias. Admit to understanding.

Your feeling are what you are expressing, if they are so "irrelevant and superfluous", why share them?

Again arguing just for the heaven of it.

The rest of your comment is biased and unworthy of time expenditure. For atheists, this matter really does not rise to the level of confrontation or argumentation, because as you should know atheist morality, where it is present, exist locally. What ancient Israel or modern Israel-any other places outside of a specific sphere of influence does is really none of any one set of atheist's moral business.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.2.15    2 months ago

You have a genuine concern that ancient people in a time where slavery was replete (worldwide Cal) and where people knew nothing different than the practice of slavery (from birth), viewed themselves as breaking the laws of the land - laws that explicitly allowed slavery??

That is like us thinking that charging interest on a loan is getting away with breaking the law of the land.   Or that sales tax is illegal.  Or, in more human terms, it is like us thinking it illegal to put people in prison for their crimes.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.2.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @14.2.16    2 months ago
Israel was told to destroy its enemies Joshua, or they would corrupt Israel from the inside (Judges) through the ways and activities these Canaanite peoples would bring in

Well, obviously, the best way to prevent a people from embracing immorality is for them to do something immoral (slavery or genocide).

What Ancient Israel or modern Israel or any other place does is really none of your moral business.

According to whom?

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.2.16    2 months ago
For atheists, this matter really does not rise to the level of confrontation or argumentation, because as you should know atheist morality, where it is present, exist locally.

Where it is present?   Atheists trend less moral than theists??   More immoral atheists than theists??   That is some venomous stereotyping Cal.

An atheist is an individual who is not convinced a god exists.   That position does not determine morality (other than the source of same for those who must be told what is moral).

My position is that the morality of an individual is not a function of religious beliefs.   Theists are no less moral than atheists and vice-versa.   

 
 
 
Split Personality
14.2.20  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @14.2.19    2 months ago
My position is that the morality of an individual is not a function of religious beliefs.   Theists are no less moral than atheists and vice-versa.   

Agreed.

I would only say differently that an atheist does not care if a god exists or not.  It is immaterial to an atheist.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @14.2.20    2 months ago
It is immaterial to an atheist.

I can appreciate that.   However, to me if a god exists I am extremely interested in learning more about said god.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @14.2.21    2 months ago
However, to me if a god exists I am extremely interested in learning more about said god.

Would that be before or after you decide if He exists?

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.22    2 months ago

Before.   It is impossible to be convinced a god exists if one does not learn about the hypothesized god.

However, it is possible to believe in a god without knowing much at all about the god or the religion.  Faith.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @14.2.23    2 months ago
However, it is possible to believe in a god without knowing much at all about the god or the religion. Faith.

I have doubts that people who don't believe in God can truly understand faith.

And I sincerely doubt that many atheists ever become believers.

That is one reason I never try to convince anyone to believe in God if they choose not to already.

Kind of pointless to me, because you either believe or you don't. Either is okay with me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @14.2.19    2 months ago
Theists are no less moral than atheists and vice-versa.

Actually I am going to qualify that.

My intention was that a person who happens to believe in a god is, by default, no more and no less moral than a person who does not.   People are people.

That established, a person can be influenced by some nasty moral lessons and, in so doing, take a moral nosedive.

Be careful about what you believe and be very careful about accepting as true that which another human being merely proclaims as truth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.24    2 months ago
I have doubts that people who don't believe in God can truly understand faith.

Pretty sure most atheists in the USA were brought up as theists.   And I am extremely confident that most atheists in the USA live among a super majority of theists.   It is not as though atheists are isolated in any way, shape of form.   So, ...

And I sincerely doubt that many atheists ever become believers.

Me too.  But Cal seems to think it happens more often than one would expect so maybe see if you can get him to provide actual information to you.  For example, quite a few inmates seem to find Jesus in prison.   People find Jesus after trauma.   Etc.

That is one reason I never try to convince anyone to believe in God if they choose not to already.

Wise choice.   I think it is not possible to force someone to believe or not believe.   It is a very personal process.   What can be done, however, is engage in the dialectic and bring forth arguments and facts for both sides to consider. 

 
 
 
CB
14.2.27  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.2.17    2 months ago
@14.2.9 What difference does that make?

Or me bothering to assent to answer your 'tacked on' questions for effect?! And,  your nagging and 'pulling emoticons' all over the place when "what difference does that make?" is being left on the 'production' table as fodder? Only to have your invariable 'come-back' when it would have been better to leave the fodder out? What a piece of work. /s

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
14.2.28  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @14.2.16    2 months ago
It is right there in the pages of the Bible, you were in church leadership so you should be able to find where Israel was told to destroy its enemies

This is my point. There were cultures that existed that did not employ permanent slavery. Yet the God of the ancient Hebrews supposedly told his followers to murder men, women and children when taking land from those people who already live there and to take permanent slaves from the ones they don't kill, to own in perpetuity including all their descendants. So saying I should just accept it because it's in the bible frankly makes no sense. Nothing you've said refutes the what this seed claims, the bible has been used to justify slavery. You seem desperate to absolve it of any responsibility, as if it can do no wrong, and any wrong done with it was just done by bad people. And while I agree they, the people who misuse it are bad, but the fact is if it didn't condone slavery it would never be used to justify it.

"The rest of your comment is biased and unworthy of time expenditure."

My pointing out that slavery was around thousands of years longer than you claimed wasn't "biased", its just a fact. The quotes from the Vice President of the confederacy isn't any of my bias, it's a quote.

"What ancient Israel or modern Israel-any other places outside of a specific sphere of influence does is really none of any one set of atheist's moral business."

Does it really matter what country people might be in if you heard they were cannibals? If the bible had laws like it does for owning slaves, but for cannibalism, like how they weren't allowed to eat Israelite's, but people of the nation were considered delicacies, would you still be saying "Well that was the times they lives in, the book that condones cannibalism is fine, it has great wisdom and the God of the bible really doesn't like cannibalism, except when he does...".

Are atheists not allowed to have opinions about others who apparently want to justify slavery? Is slavery a religious tradition thus atheists can't talk about it? And I'm not worried about what ancient Israel "does", they did it a long time ago, all anyone here is doing is pointing out that yes, the bible has been used to justify slavery.

 
 
 
katrix
14.2.29  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.2.2    2 months ago
That's the guy who heard whispers in his head telling him to take his son to the top of a nearby mountain, build an alter and sacrifice him to the God of the bible.

Speaking of relative morality - these days, we arrest or commit whackjobs like that.  Back then, they believed these people were talking to gods.  Some people these days still glorify their behavior ... very sad.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.30  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.2.18    2 months ago

According to Atheist-naturalist moral relativism. If you say (and you do) there is no global moral absolutism, then you can not decide morals for other groups of people-outside your own local group. To each its own.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.31  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.2.19    2 months ago

You know damn well for all the multiple discussions we have traveled down that I am speaking of your philosophical-naturalistic state of existence. Atheist is an over-arching term which is inclusive of all atheists and their other worldviews. Don't try to compartmentalize this to a single thread.

I am not going to waste my time defining and redefining the words, atheism and atheist. You should know what your worldview is—trust me I certainly do. (You seem to want to be a know-it-all on all things God-related.)

As to philosophical-naturalism, moral positions are what each individual says they are individually or collectively. Even when choosing morally nonexistent.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.2.32  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @14.2.30    2 months ago

Obviously, you agree that morality is relative.  Above, you state that

I think it is not right for a human to own another person as property; (Bolding yours, BTW).

How do you come to this conclusion, if not by way of relative morality?  If yours were an objective morality, it would come from your supreme entity, and he apparently sees slavery as hunky dory.  You disagree with that as a result of your own moral relativism.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.2.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @14.2.31    2 months ago
I am not going to waste my time defining and redefining the world atheist.

That's a nice change.

You should know what you are being—trust me I certainly do.

Veiled insults?

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.2.31