Slavery in the Bible

By:  TᵢG  •  3 months ago  •  389 comments

Slavery in the Bible
In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral.

To comment, please join the group Religious and not News Chat

Religious and not News Chat

The God of the Bible (hereafter 'God') is oft cited as the arbiter of objective morality.   In other words human morality is a gift from God and God is the one who determines immorality. The immediate problem with this position is that the Bible then becomes the written record of this morality.   

The Bible, for those who have studied it, clearly reflects a morality of ancient men.   What was considered moral in biblical times is often at odds with what most human beings consider moral today.   Worse, the Bible presents at best a confused moral code with plenty of vague notions and contradictions.   Using the Bible as the source for moral lessons is replete with challenges. At the pinnacle of the Bible's moral challenge is the subject of slavery and the topic question:

Does God Consider Slavery Immoral?


In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral. The fact that God speaks to slavery proves that He has rendered an opinion.   But instead of taking the opportunity to condemn slavery (and actually provide a little evidence that the Bible might be divine) God chose instead to make rules for proper enslavement.   A characteristic (albeit not unique) passage illustrating this is as follows:


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.

It should not be necessary to explain the above.   But note the blue.   This passage is clearly talking about a master beating a slave (potentially to the point of death).   So this is serious stuff.   Now look at the ending part of the quote:

... since the slave is their property.

Here God deems a human being as the property of another.    No small declaration.   

Back in biblical times slavery was commonplace.   It was the core of the economic system.  People lived their entire lives with slavery so it seemed very normal to them.   That includes the many ancient men who penned the content we collectively call 'the Bible' today.  So it is no surprise that the Bible (if written by men without the guidance of God) does not condemn slavery.   Not only was slavery considered normal to these ancient men, but condemning slavery would disrupt the economic base of the times.   Of course ancient men would not -on their own without the guiding wisdom of a supreme entity- condemn slavery.   And, as we can see, they did not.

But if the Bible were divine - the word of the grandest possible entity - the creator of everything - the arbiter of objective morality, then one would expect God would not make rules for slavery but would instead condemn it.  After all, slavery is immoral.  We all 'know' this to be true do we not?

Condemning Slavery would Wreak Havoc with the Economy


Yes it would!   It would create quite a problem for biblical societies.   But God has demonstrated a willingness to interfere in many ways.   One can cite Adam & Eve and the subsequent impact on all generations of human beings.   No tiny thing.   And then there is the Tower of Babel where God intentionally confuses people with various languages to prevent them from growing too arrogant.   And, of course, note that Noah's flood ostensibly interfered with society in the most severe possible way - by wiping out all life on the planet save Noah and his passengers. So it is a weak argument to suggest that God chose to remain silent on the immorality of slavery so as to not upset the apple cart.   The omniscient, omnipotent God of the Bible is not known for being silent, for not messing with his creations or for lacking power.

You Are Twisting The Meaning Of Scripture


One can always resort to cheap tactics such as merely declaring 'you are mangling the meaning of the scripture' or 'you are ignoring the context' or 'but God would never condone slavery' or any number of feeble excuses.  But there are select passages of the Bible that really speak for themselves.   Exodus 21:20-21 rather clearly states (per God) that one human being is the property of another.   No point trying to deny it.  Further, one can go to the Hebrew version (more 'original') and we will find this:

And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged.   But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property.

The scripture does a fine job of laying this out all on its own.   No twisting required.

Take Away


It probably is best to not try to define the Bible as providing moral guidance.   That will get you into trouble very quickly.   But if the topic is Slavery in the Bible it is highly advised to not try to mount a biblical defense.   Not only does the Bible never show God condemning slavery as immoral but it actually shows God acknowledging and allowing the practice of one human being owning another.

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
TᵢG
1  author  TᵢG    3 months ago

Defending biblical morality regarding slavery is something one should avoid.   

 
 
Split Personality
1.1  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 months ago
Not only does the Bible never show God condemning slavery as immoral but it actually shows God acknowledging and allowing the practice of one human being owning another.

Because the good book was written by many men, many slave owning men, from tribes who historically took and kept slaves...too many tribes to list here.

 
 
TᵢG
1.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @1.1    3 months ago

Exactly.   Slavery was completely normal and acceptable to ancient men.   They lived their entire lives with slavery as a fundamental element of their economy.   It is no surprise at all that ancient men would not deem slavery immoral.

But if we pretend the ancient men were actually penning the word of God then we have quite a different situation.   God, as the arbiter of objective morality, surely would find the owning of a human being as property to be immoral.   He finds screwing the goat to be immoral.

There is a profound problem here.   Easily resolved if one views the Bible as purely the invention of ancient men.   Seemingly impossible if one considers the Bible divine.

 
 
Gordy327
1.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 months ago
Defending biblical morality regarding slavery is something one should avoid.   

Defending almost anything biblically "moral" is something to be avoided. Of course, it speaks volumes about those who actually try to defend such biblical things like slavery.

 
 
TᵢG
1.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2    3 months ago
Of course, it speaks volumes about those who actually try to defend such biblical things like slavery.

Yeah, is that not amazing?   Rather than consider the fact that the Bible might just be a man-made invention some will actually try to defend the notion that God - the grandest possible entity and arbiter of objective morality - would not condemn as immoral the owning of a human being as property.    God will make rules on weaves of clothing (and many other details) yet not once does God state that slavery is immoral.  Instead, God makes rules for proper enslavement.

Some things are obvious.   

 
 
Gordy327
1.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    3 months ago
Yeah, is that not amazing? 

Mind boggling is more like it.

some will actually try to defend the notion that God - the grandest possible entity and arbiter of objective morality - would not condemn as immoral the owning of a human being as property.

But these same individuals might agree slavery is immoral. So that means they disagree with god's view on slavery, but refuse to admit it because they don't want to contradict their god.

Some things are obvious.

Unless one has religious blinders on. Then watch the rationalizations and pretzel logic begin.

 
 
TᵢG
1.2.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.2    3 months ago
But these same individuals might agree slavery is immoral. So that means they disagree with god's view on slavery, but refuse to admit it because they don't want to contradict their god.

One would hope that is true.  

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.3    3 months ago

Aw, c'mon! You know you're just taking it out of "context". That's not what the Bible really means and the meaning of the original word slave has been changed.

Winking 2

 
 
TᵢG
1.2.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.4    3 months ago

Cliche 'reasoned' response No. 1.   If that does not work go with No. 2:  'the Lord works in mysterious ways'.

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.5    3 months ago

I think people should just admit that they cherry pick the Bible and only follow the scriptures they like.

 
 
TᵢG
1.2.7  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.6    3 months ago

Yeah me too.   It is so obvious, it is not as though they are fooling anyone.  (Although I do accept the possibility that they are fooling themselves; that they do not even realize they are playing loose with the interpretations.)

But here is the deal.    If someone believes in the biblical God then that almost forces them to deem the Bible divine since it is the Bible that defines this God.   So if someone is backed into holding the Bible divine they necessarily must hold the Bible to always be true - at least the parts where God is 'speaking'.   When the inevitable questions such as the morality of slavery arise they have no choice but to mount a defense.   In this case, the defense seems impossible yet inexplicably people still try.   

My advice (oft provided) is to not hold the Bible divine and to not simply accept as truth the biblical definition (and depiction) of God.   Rather, define God based upon what you know.   God is certainly held as the creator of everything.  Okay, go with that.  And end with that.   At this point God is an hypothesis.  Other than that nobody knows what God wants from us (if anything), the limits of God's powers, the future God has planned for us (if anything), etc.   One can speculate that there is a creator God but there is nothing else that anyone could possibly know unless the supreme entity mind-melds with them (which some will claim).

 
 
Gordy327
1.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.4    3 months ago
You know you're just taking it out of "context".

Or "mangling" it, lol

 
 
Skrekk
2  Skrekk    3 months ago

I think it's very revealing that the largest evangelical sect in the US, the Southern Baptists, were founded specifically to promote white supremacy and the pro-slavery teachings of the bible.    It says a lot about the type of "Christianity" they practice despite the fact that they recently renounced support for white supremacy and slavery.

But I wonder what they have left now that they've renounced their core foundational principles, the very reasons they came to exist as a separate sect.    Can they still exist merely by fostering misogyny, homophobia and transphobia?   Are they aware that despite their policy change about slavery it seems that many if not most of their members still harbor white supremacist views and vote accordingly?   

And more generally aren't the concepts of "slave" and "master" central to Christianity and describe the relationship of Christians to their god?

 
 
TᵢG
2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @2    3 months ago

Islam takes the master-slave relationship with God to a new level.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    3 months ago

That's the truth. Islam even means "submission"

 
 
Jack_TX
3  Jack_TX    3 months ago
One can always resort to cheap tactics such as merely declaring 'you are mangling the meaning of the scripture' or 'you are ignoring the context

You're really not going to attempt to assert that context isn't important, surely.

But if the Bible were divine - the word of the grandest possible entity - the creator of everything - the arbiter of objective morality, then one would expect God would not make rules for slavery but would instead condemn it.

I have spent most of my life as a Christian.  For almost all of that time, I have seen humans attempt to project their ideas of morality on to God.  They are often very, very wrong.

 
 
Gordy327
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 months ago
I have seen humans attempt to project their ideas of morality on to God.  They are often very, very wrong.

Does god view slavery as morally wrong?

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    3 months ago
Does god view slavery as morally wrong?

I think it may depend on the context.  In the society of our modern age, I think God probably opposes slavery quite strongly.  But He's eternal, and things weren't always as they are today.

In the society of the time, slaves had value.  Unattached beggars, widows, and children had none.  People voluntarily entered servitude arrangements seeking safety and sustenance.  The entire Nation of Israel became slaves in Egypt willingly in order to avoid famine and war.

The Bible is actually replete with statements, rules, prohibitions or assertions that were intended for a given time and place to a given set of people in a given set of circumstances.  It is human beings who attempt to transfer these things into some eternal and inviolate law.

 
 
Skrekk
3.1.2  Skrekk  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.1    3 months ago
The Bible is actually replete with statements, rules, prohibitions or assertions that were intended for a given time and place to a given set of people in a given set of circumstances.

It certainly does reflect the mores of Bronze-age goat rapists, and it's interesting to see you admit that your "god" supported slavery and the rape of child slaves at one time.   

.

In the society of our modern age, I think God probably opposes slavery quite strongly.

It's not clear to me when your "god" changed his immutable mind on whether slavery was a good thing.   Can you cite a passage to support that policy change?

 
 
TᵢG
3.1.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.1    3 months ago
 In the society of our modern age, I think God probably opposes slavery quite strongly. 

Have you noticed that God has not updated His stance on slavery?   His last opining on the subject was over 2000 years ago.   Not even a hint of a correction.

So since biblical times imagine the amount of slavery that has taken place.   All the way up to recent US history where we too engaged in this practice.   Imagine the historical difference if God had bothered to say 'okay, times are now different - slavery is immoral - do not hold another human being as your property'. ?

You think God probably opposes slavery?    Well if so He does not seem to oppose it very strongly given His ongoing silence on the matter.    Eye Roll

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.3    3 months ago
Have you noticed that God has not updated His stance on slavery?
   His last opining on the subject was over 2000 years ago.   Not even a hint of a correction.

Why do you think that?

 
 
TᵢG
3.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.4    3 months ago
Why do you think that?

If you have a way to get God's current moral ruling on slavery (where He condemns slavery as immoral) feel free to share it.    If not, then what point do you wish to make?

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.5    3 months ago
Did I miss Bible circa 2018? If you have a way to get God's current moral ruling on slavery (where He condemns slavery as immoral) feel free to share it.    If not, then what point do you wish to make?

Why would the Bible be God's sole and only method of communication with mankind?  Is there a major religious sect who believes that?  Where do you get this idea? 

Moreover, why do you seem so determined to limit God?  Your points are based on you trying to wedge the creator of all things into your box of limited human understanding.  Surely you see the problematic nature of such a stance.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.5    3 months ago
If you have a way to get God's current moral ruling on slavery (where He condemns slavery as immoral) feel free to share it.

Since it's apparent that the authors of the bible were humans who wanted to justify slavery, murder of their enemies or nations that resided in the land they wanted, they conveniently created a God who condoned slavery and told them the occupied land they wanted was their "promised land" making it okay to raid, pillage and murder even women and children to get it. Maybe what Jack is claiming is that humans today have "updated" the bible with their own ever changing interpretations. They've made many of the things banned by the ancient God of the Hebrews legal like working on the Sabbath, slavery, making clothing of multiple fabrics, eating shellfish, even adultery isn't much of a big deal now among Christians, but they decided to keep other laws because things like homosexuality make them feel icky. I suppose since the bible is a work of historical fiction written by humans they're allowed to change it or "update it" whenever they want, it only reflects the morals of whatever time period you're in. Just a little over a hundred years ago the bible was being used by conservative Christians to condone and justify slavery so it was fairly recently that they had that change of heart, it only took a civil war and hundreds of thousands of Americans dying to make them realize it.

 
 
TᵢG
3.1.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.6    3 months ago

Please share your source where God condemns slavery as immoral.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.8    3 months ago
Please share your source where God condemns slavery as immoral.

To my knowledge, God does not actually have a website, nor does He blog, or vlog, or have a FB page....and Twitter is Satan's instrument for the end of civilization....so I don't think he Tweets.

However Christians believe that He is active in the hearts of mankind through the Holy Spirit.

So look at the very context of this conversation.  We're all sitting here talking about how God could fail to "call out" such an abhorrent practice, that was commonplace less than two centuries ago.  In fact, every major religion now condemns the practice of slavery.  So one of two conclusions is possible.

Either....A)  We as humans have somehow experienced some sort of moral evolution of our own making.... or...... B) The Holy Spirit has been at work changing the hearts and minds of humans all over the world. 

Theoretically I suppose some combination of A and B is possible, but I don't know for sure.

 
 
TᵢG
3.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.9    3 months ago
To my knowledge, God does not actually have a website, nor does He blog, or vlog, or have a FB page..

Yes, makes it real tough to know God's position.

However Christians believe that He is active in the hearts of mankind through the Holy Spirit.

Yes they do.   Quite convenient too.   Whatever they feel is right is simply the Holy Spirit talking to them.    

So look at the very context of this conversation.  We're all sitting here talking about how God could fail to "call out" such an abhorrent practice, that was commonplace less than two centuries ago.  In fact, every major religion now condemns the practice of slavery.  So one of two conclusions is possible.

Either....A)  We as humans have somehow experienced some sort of moral evolution of our own making.... or...... B) The Holy Spirit has been at work changing the hearts and minds of humans all over the world. 

Theoretically I suppose some combination of A and B is possible, but I don't know for sure.

Or maybe our morals are simply man-made and they evolve like anything else - per environment and over time.   I think what I have proposed matches the evidence far better that what you just proposed.

 
 
Gordy327
3.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.9    3 months ago
To my knowledge, God does not actually have a website, nor does He blog, or vlog, or have a FB page....and Twitter is Satan's instrument for the end of civilization....so I don't think he Tweets.

Then that means one cannot claim to know or understand god, or presume to speak about what god does or wants.

However Christians believe that He is active in the hearts of mankind through the Holy Spirit.

Key word there is "believe," as in that's all it is.

So look at the very context of this conversation.  We're all sitting here talking about how God could fail to "call out" such an abhorrent practice, that was commonplace less than two centuries ago.

Considering slavery has existed in civilizations for thousands of years, god really dropped the ball when he failed to admonish it.

  In fact, every major religion now condemns the practice of slavery.  So one of two conclusions is possible. Either....A)  We as humans have somehow experienced some sort of moral evolution of our own making.... 

If humans deem slavery as immoral and an abhorrent practice, whereas god did not, then human morality has surpassed god's morality in that regard.

or...... B) The Holy Spirit has been at work changing the hearts and minds of humans all over the world. 

Sure, it's only taken thousands of years. Talk about an inefficient process.

Why would the Bible be God's sole and only method of communication with mankind?

Considering the bible is a "holy" book to various religions/denominations, some of which think it's "god's Word," then it's logical to assume the bible is the most significant means of god communicating with mankind. of course, he could just appear and tell it straight out.

Is there a major religious sect who believes that? Where do you get this idea?

Many do believe the bible is literally "God's word/truth"

Moreover, why do you seem so determined to limit God? Your points are based on you trying to wedge the creator of all things into your box of limited human understanding. Surely you see the problematic nature of such a stance.

Surely you see the problematic nature of assuming god is limitless or beyond understanding on certain points? Eh, probably not.

I think it may depend on the context.

Slavery is a straightforward concept.

In the society of our modern age, I think God probably opposes slavery quite strongly. But He's eternal, and things weren't always as they are today.

And you base that on what exactly? God never seemed to oppose slavery in the old days, and there's no indication he opposes it now.

In the society of the time, slaves had value. Unattached beggars, widows, and children had none. People voluntarily entered servitude arrangements seeking safety and sustenance. The entire Nation of Israel became slaves in Egypt willingly in order to avoid famine and war.

The issue isn't the "value" of slaves, but rather the morality of slavery.

The Bible is actually replete with statements, rules, prohibitions or assertions that were intended for a given time and place to a given set of people in a given set of circumstances. It is human beings who attempt to transfer these things into some eternal and inviolate law.

But there's not one thing which actually condemns the practice of slavery.

 
 
Skrekk
3.1.12  Skrekk  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.9    3 months ago
However Christians believe that He is active in the hearts of mankind through the Holy Spirit.

He must have been snoozing when Southern Baptists founded their sect to promote white supremacy and the enslavement of black folks.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.10    3 months ago
Yes they do.   Quite convenient too.   Whatever they feel is right is simply the Holy Spirit talking to them.    

Absolutely.  And as I said, people often get it very wrong.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  

Or maybe our morals are simply man-made and they evolve like anything else - per environment and over time.   I think what I have proposed matches the evidence far better that what you just proposed.

You're certainly able and entitled to form your own opinion on the matter.  I'm not trying to convince you.  Just trying to help you see that there are other possibilities.

 
 
Gordy327
3.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.13    3 months ago
But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  

That doesn't mean it does happen either. There's no evidence of such an occurrence other than because someone says so.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.14    3 months ago
That doesn't mean it does happen either. There's no evidence of such an occurrence other than because someone says so.

Correct.  

I'm not going to try to convince you.  Believe what you want.

 
 
Gordy327
3.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.15    3 months ago
Believe what you want.

I generally don't go by belief. Neither does belief equal fact.

 
 
TᵢG
3.1.17  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.13    3 months ago
Just trying to help you see that there are other possibilities.

There are always possibilities.   (Coincidentally I just responded to this on another article.)   I will use the same example.   It is possible that God is actually a sadist who messes with our minds so as to wreak havoc that he can then enjoy watching as it unfolds.

Lots of things are possible - good and bad.   What we should do is follow the evidence to where it leads (whether desirable or undesirable).   Use our 'God-given' faculties and distinguish the unlikely from the likely (in a continuum).   That does not mean the unlikely is impossible, it just means that based upon what we know and our best attempt at objective reasoning we have identified the most likely (fits the data and the logic the best) explanation for what we observe.

Some refer to that as the scientific method.

 
 
Gordy327
3.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.17    3 months ago
There are always possibilities.

I think Spock said that in Star Trek II: TWoK. winking

   It is possible that God is actually a sadist who messes with our minds so as to wreak havoc that he can then enjoy watching as it unfolds.

Either that, or he has one cruel sense of humor.

Some refer to that as the scientific method.

It's a good method. Thumbs Up 2

 
 
Skrekk
3.2  Skrekk  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 months ago
I have spent most of my life as a Christian.  For almost all of that time, I have seen humans attempt to project their ideas of morality on to God.  They are often very, very wrong.

Interesting that your "god" never prohibited slavery but does have rules for how hard you can beat your slave.

You'd think an ethical "god" would have a ban on slavery in his top 10 list or at least a ban on raping your slaves.    Heck, let's throw in a general ban on rape and make it a top 11 list.    Instead we get petty laws designed to prop up the ego of a petulant "god", and other such trivia. 

 
 
TᵢG
3.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 months ago
You're really not going to attempt to assert that context isn't important, surely.

What an odd thing to presume.   No, Jack, context is very important.   But some people claim 'out of context' as a rebuttal no matter what is written.   You know that so why did you bother to ask your question?

For almost all of that time, I have seen humans attempt to project their ideas of morality on to God. 

What you just did is another typical response.   Along the lines of 'how dare you question God'?   Well, actually, in my way of thinking I am questioning ancient men who are pretending to be God.   So, that established, do you personally consider it immoral for one to own another human being as property?

 
 
Jack_TX
3.3.1  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    3 months ago
What an odd thing to presume.   No, Jack, context is very important.

So not a "feeble excuse" then?

   But some people claim 'out of context' as a rebuttal no matter what is written.   You know that so why did you bother to ask your question?

Because I believe the very answer to your "question"....I do hope your mind is still open on the matter....has everything to do with context.

For almost all of that time, I have seen humans attempt to project their ideas of morality on to God. 
What you just did is another typical response.   Along the lines of 'how dare you question God'?

What an odd thing to presume.  No, TiG, we should definitely question God.  But there is a huge difference between projecting human morality on to God and seeking to understand Him better.  That "projecting human morality" can manifest itself in any number of iterations.  It can be anything from "you must believe the earth is the center of the universe" to "Jonah couldn't possibly have been swallowed by a fish, so the entire Bible is bullshit" to "a loving God would never send people to hell".

Let me put it this way.....  "Just because we don't understand God doesn't mean He's wrong."  But we should definitely always keep pursuing that understanding.

   Well, actually, in my way of thinking I am questioning ancient men who are pretending to be God.

Or even attempting to understand God within their own context of the world.

   So, that established, do you personally consider it immoral for one to own another human being as property?

Yes.  But do I think that's an eternal rule that was always a moral absolute?  I don't know.  I wasn't there.  There is a nearly infinite amount of stuff I don't understand about life circa 1200 BC or 20 AD for that matter, so for me to make some sort of authoritative moral judgment about those people's lives is more than a little asinine.

When I was young and knew everything, moral absolutes were easy.  Life is wonderfully black and white when you don't have enough years on you to see it closely.  The older I get, the more experience teaches me that things are never that easy, and the "gray areas" cover a whole helluva lot more than my hair.

 
 
TᵢG
3.3.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.1    3 months ago
Just because we don't understand God doesn't mean He's wrong.

Wrong about what?   How does anyone even know God's position to deem it wrong or right? 

 
 
Jack_TX
3.3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    3 months ago
Wrong about what? 

Sort of expansive question.  Did you have a particular topic in mind?

 How does anyone even know God's position to deem it wrong or right? 

How does one know the will of God?  Great question, and one that is central to the distinctions between most Christian sects.  

Catholics believe that the understanding of God's will comes from various sources, including the scriptures, church tradition, and reason.  Evangelicals tend to lean more on the Bible.  Liturgical protestants tend to use the scriptures interpreted to integrate with the modern society in which they live.

 
 
TᵢG
3.3.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.3    3 months ago
Sort of expansive question.  Did you have a particular topic in mind?

No, I am trying to understand what you meant.  Your comment was vague.

How does one know the will of God?  Great question, and one that is central to the distinctions between most Christian sects.  

Thank you.  I would like to read a good answer to that question.

Catholics believe that the understanding of God's will comes from various sources, including the scriptures, church tradition, and reason.  Evangelicals tend to lean more on the Bible.  Liturgical protestants tend to use the scriptures interpreted to integrate with the modern society in which they live.

Well the part that comes from scripture relies upon some heavily worked over material that is demonstrably errant.   How anyone can use reason to conclude the Bible is divine is amazing.  Wish someone could explain the reasoning process without inserting the 'taken on faith' wild card.

The part that comes from church tradition is clearly man-made.   Why take the word of religious men who invent concepts such as Purgatory and pretend they know what they are talking about?

And in general, the interpretations are all over the map.   Given the wide and conflicting interpretations of the Bible how does one determine that one has the correct interpretation?

Thanks for trying, but you really have not explained how one can know the will of God.   You have explained how people can believe they know the will of God.   A very big difference.   And my comments simply challenged the integrity of the sources for said belief.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.3.5  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.4    3 months ago
No, I am trying to understand what you meant.  Your comment was vague.

Sorry about that.  In a general sense, I guess a lot of people misinterpret or misunderstand things, and then use that as rationale for not believing.  Which is odd, IMO.  Why would you need a rationale?  I guess they're emotionally conflicted about it or something.

Thank you.  I would like to read a good answer to that question.

I wish I were more confident in my ability to provide one.  

Catholics believe that the understanding of God's will comes from various sources, including the scriptures, church tradition, and reason.  Evangelicals tend to lean more on the Bible.  Liturgical protestants tend to use the scriptures interpreted to integrate with the modern society in which they live.
Well the part that comes from scripture relies upon some heavily worked over material that is demonstrably errant.   How anyone can use reason to conclude the Bible is divine is amazing.  Wish someone could explain the reasoning process without inserting the 'taken on faith' wild card.

If we start with central themes of the Bible, things like "God loves us" and "we should love each other", and then apply that lens to scriptural passages or parables, attempting to see those things through the eyes of the people of that day, we can get really good lessons.  We can extrapolate those to our time, and apply those moral ideas to our lives.

The part that comes from church tradition is clearly man-made.   Why take the word of religious men who invent concepts such as Purgatory and pretend they know what they are talking about?

I'm not Catholic, so I can't really comment on purgatory.  But as I understand it, their church traditions originally helped them establish the concepts of Christianity over the centuries to people who were simple and usually illiterate.

And in general, the interpretations are all over the map.

Yeah.  No doubt.  That doesn't help matters.

   Given the wide and conflicting interpretations of the Bible how does one determine that one has the correct interpretation?

I can only speak for myself.  I look at those key themes of the Bible and the image they give me of God as a loving, forgiving father who wants the best from us and for us, but expects us to work toward that for each other, as well.  Then I look at the lessons I can learn from the individuals described in the Bible, their decisions and their actions.

Thanks for trying, but you really have not explained how one can know the will of God.   You have explained how people can believe they know the will of God.   A very big difference.   And my comments simply challenged the integrity of the sources for said belief.

Looks like my lack of confidence was well founded.  Sorry about that.  To be fair, it's a question that has been debated for centuries by better believers than I am.

 
 
TᵢG
3.3.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.5    3 months ago
If we start with central themes of the Bible, things like "God loves us" and "we should love each other", and then apply that lens to scriptural passages or parables, attempting to see those things through the eyes of the people of that day, we can get really good lessons.  We can extrapolate those to our time, and apply those moral ideas to our lives.

And quite a few people do just that.   But the lens is a rose-colored glass that accepts only the good and hides the bad.   This principle is seen quite clearly in the Christian teachings where the focus is on Jesus and then selected stories from the OT, like the flood, are transformed into 'nice' tales that whitewash much of the bad.  This is why I oft state that Christians should just write their own Bible.  Take the parts of the NT they care about and the very few pieces of the OT (e.g. the 10 commandments) and create a Bible that when read with detail will portray only what they wish their followers to believe.

It is not as if this has not been done before.

I'm not Catholic, so I can't really comment on purgatory.  But as I understand it, their church traditions originally helped them establish the concepts of Christianity over the centuries to people who were simple and usually illiterate.

Purgatory was simply an example of how religious leaders make things up.    If a group is willing to declare Purgatory then they are pretending to know things that they could not possibly know - as if they literally converse with God.   To me, that is a high class con job.

I can only speak for myself.  I look at those key themes of the Bible and the image they give me of God as a loving, forgiving father who wants the best from us and for us, but expects us to work toward that for each other, as well.  Then I look at the lessons I can learn from the individuals described in the Bible, their decisions and their actions.

You and Drakkonis have much in common in how you approach your religion.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.3.7  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.6    3 months ago
And quite a few people do just that.   But the lens is a rose-colored glass that accepts only the good and hides the bad.   This principle is seen quite clearly in the Christian teachings where the focus is on Jesus and then selected stories from the OT, like the flood, are transformed into 'nice' tales that whitewash much of the bad. 

Meh.  Don't assume that people don't struggle with issues like the genocide in Canaan, just because they're not telling you about it.

This is why I oft state that Christians should just write their own Bible. 

If you count the Council of Nicea, we kinda did....

Take the parts of the NT they care about and the very few pieces of the OT (e.g. the 10 commandments) and create a Bible that when read with detail will portray only what they wish their followers to believe.

Again, I think the danger is having a God so small He fits in a tidy little box.  Don't get me wrong... a LOT of people want that and do their best to create that idea, but most theologians don't.

Purgatory was simply an example of how religious leaders make things up.    If a group is willing to declare Purgatory then they are pretending to know things that they could not possibly know - as if they literally converse with God.   To me, that is a high class con job.

I understood the reference.  Again, I know only what Dante told be about purgatory when I was in college, and frankly don't remember most of that, so that's not an example I can converse on.  But let's use another like it, as the Bible is full of such instances. 

We have the story of Gideon, to whom God speaks, directing him to recruit the most unlikely army ever imagined, and win a decisive battle against impossible odds.  Why do we think God spoke to Gideon?  He was alone.  There are no corroborating witnesses to this story.  For all we know he was just some nutter who got lucky.

Why would we think God spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus? Why would we think He spoke to Moses on the mountain?  Or Joshua at Jericho?

Christians believe these things because they weave together to tell the story of an omnipotent, redemptive father who loves His children.  He is the God of 2nd. 3rd and 10th chances, if you will.  Purgatory fits into that theme, BTW.

So I don't know that God ever actually spoke to Gideon. Or Samuel.  Or Moses, Abraham, Paul, John, Jeremiah or anybody else.  But within the framework of my limited understanding of God, those events don't seem inconsistent.  I have no reason to think God has stopped communicating with His children, therefore I'm hesitant to declare something like purgatory a "con-job".  I just dunno, and I'm certainly not going to say He couldn't do it if he wanted to.

I'm not sure that answer is any less vague than before.

 
 
TᵢG
3.3.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.7    3 months ago
Don't assume that people don't struggle with issues like the genocide in Canaan, just because they're not telling you about it.

From what I have observed most religious people are very unaware of their religion.

If you count the Council of Nicea, we kinda did....

( My reference to this having been done before. )

Again, I think the danger is having a God so small He fits in a tidy little box.  Don't get me wrong... a LOT of people want that and do their best to create that idea, but most theologians don't.

I do too, but probably for a different reason.   God should be defined based upon what we know.   I posit that we know nothing about God (we do not even know if God exists).   But we know that God might exist so we certainly can form a God hypothesis which states a belief that a creator entity exists.    After that God could literally be anything.   What God wants (if anything), what God plans (if anything), what God actually is, etc. is all unknown.   No point speculating.   And certainly let's do away with the millions who pretend to speak for God.

To me that is both honest and defensible.   And God is in a box the size of eternity.

I understood the reference.  

The point of my reference was that countless individuals claim to know the mind of God.   I wish they would cease with that.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.3.9  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.8    3 months ago
From what I have observed most religious people are very unaware of their religion.

I wish I could disagree with that.  Alas.

I do too, but probably for a different reason.   God should be defined based upon what we know.   I posit that we know nothing about God (we do not even know if God exists).   But we know that God might exist so we certainly can form a God hypothesis which states a belief that a creator entity exists.    After that God could literally be anything.   What God wants (if anything), what God plans (if anything), what God actually is, etc. is all unknown.   No point speculating.   And certainly let's do away with the millions who pretend to speak for God. To me that is both honest and defensible.   And God is in a box the size of eternity.

It's certainly an interesting idea.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 months ago
You're really not going to attempt to assert that context isn't important, surely.

Either the God Christians worship is infallible or it's not, you can't have an inconsistent God who once supported slavery and now finds it abhorrent and still be infallible.

With fallible humans we make laws like bans on Marijuana, then we recognize the error of our ways and get rid of stupid bans. Sadly, we still have people serving time in prison for a crime that is no longer illegal, and in many States like California they're working on a fix to release those persons still in prison for possession. With the bible, you apparently have faithful believers who owned slaves and only beat them a little bit but not death which was allowed supposedly living in heaven, but if they owned a slave today and did the same they'd be sentenced to hell, right? Or perhaps believers who broke some of the old laws like the Sabbath or eating shellfish that are supposedly living in hell but people today doing the exact same thing supposedly going to heaven. This is incongruous and makes absolutely no sense, and if true, can only mean the God that does such things in an inconsistent petty hypocrite, blessing one follower who banged his two daughters while condemning anyone else who practices incest.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.4.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4    3 months ago
Either the God Christians worship is infallible or it's not,

He is.

you can't have an inconsistent God who once supported slavery and now finds it abhorrent and still be infallible.

Hmmm.  The idea that God can only make eternal rules for all situations over all of time seems more than a bit strange.  

This is incongruous and makes absolutely no sense,

To you.  Makes no sense.....to you.  But then you're not really interested in understanding it anyway.

You have a framework in which you demand God operate.  But the thing about God is that he frequently does his own thing and chooses to ignore our human framework.  He chose Gideon, one of the greatest cowards in history, to lead an army against overwhelming odds.  He chose David, the youngest son of a minor family from the least of the tribes, to be king.  

Jesus went to the poor and the unclean.  He healed on the Sabbath.  He ignored the standing religious framework, just like He will ignore the restrictions you or I seek to place on Him.

Think what you will, believe what you will, but God is not bothered by your limitations.

 
 
TᵢG
3.4.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.1    3 months ago
He is [infallible].

How do you know God is infallible (assuming that is what you meant)?

 
 
Gordy327
3.4.3  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.1    3 months ago
He is.

That's nice. prove it!

The idea that God can only make eternal rules for all situations over all of time seems more than a bit strange.

Why? is god not capable of doing so? If god has to change his mind on certain things, then that means he didn't get it right the first time. That negates the idea god is infallible. 

To you. Makes no sense.....to you. But then you're not really interested in understanding it anyway.

It makes no sense to any rational minded individual.

You have a framework in which you demand God operate.

It's called logic and reasoning. of course, those without that will attempt to rationalize anything where god is concerned.

Think what you will, believe what you will, but God is not bothered by your limitations.

And that's nothing more than your own belief.

 
 
Skrekk
3.4.4  Skrekk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4    3 months ago
This is incongruous and makes absolutely no sense, and if true, can only mean the God that does such things in an inconsistent petty hypocrite, blessing one follower who banged his two daughters while condemning anyone else who practices incest.

In fairness, Lot did pretend to be drunk and asleep when he was having sex with his kids.    That makes it OK and it's one reason why the Great Sky Fairy considers Lot to be a righteous man.    The other reason is because he offered up his kids to be gang raped by an angry mob.

 
 
Skrekk
3.4.5  Skrekk  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.1    3 months ago
Jesus went to the poor and the unclean.

And he used parables about how hard to beat your slaves but never once said that slavery might be a bad idea.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.4.6  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.4.2    3 months ago
How do you know God is infallible (assuming that is what you meant)?

Yeah, that's what I meant.

It's a fair question.  I obviously can't prove it, so I suppose it comes down to a matter of faith.  Not a compelling answer, I realize.  Sorry.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.4.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @3.4.3    3 months ago
That's nice. prove it!

*eyeroll*  Surely you have better than that.

Why? is god not capable of doing so? If god has to change his mind on certain things, then that means he didn't get it right the first time. That negates the idea god is infallible. 

Nonsense.  Really...just ridiculous.  Do you intend to assert that human beings in 2018 are of the same level of education and sophistication as they were in 800 BC?  So why would God be static when His people are not?

It makes no sense to any rational minded individual.

There are a whole lot of people much more rational and intelligent than you who believe in God or did so when they were alive, from Galileo to Pascal to Darwin.  Your hubris is a bit silly.

 
 
Gordy327
3.4.8  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.7    3 months ago
Surely you have better than that.

Surely you can back up your assertion!

Nonsense. Really...just ridiculous. Do you intend to assert that human beings in 2018 are of the same level of education and sophistication as they were in 800 BC? So why would God be static when His people are not?

I would like to think human beings in 2018 are educated and sophisticated enough to not need silly religious superstitions and fairy tales. Oh well.

There are a whole lot of people much more rational and intelligent than you who believe in God or did so when they were alive, from Galileo to Pascal to Darwin. Your hubris is a bit silly.

Believing in god was not the issue. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.4.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.1    3 months ago
The idea that God can only make eternal rules for all situations over all of time seems more than a bit strange.

What would be strange about a God being consistent regardless of the time or place? Why would God create rules for the Israelite's with death as the punishment for breaking many of them then just arbitrarily change his mind in what amounts to seconds later? (if you buy the "a thousand years is as a day" to God nonsense) That seems to be far stranger than than having a consistent God, one who would punish or reward a follower exactly the same regardless of the time period lived in, or is heaven and hell separated by eras? Those who were killed for eating shellfish or not being obedient to their parents in this pit of hell, but the next era those rules are out the window and the perpetrators now get heaven instead. That would be a strange God indeed.

 
 
DRHunk
4  DRHunk    3 months ago

wanted to share the mental gymnastics occurring in the church to persuade followers that Slavery in the bible really wasn't all that people are making out to be. I had a good laugh, my addition in (), alot to take in so bear with me.

Types of Slaves
The Old Testament recognized different types of slaves depending on their circumstances. None of them correspond to modern chattel slaves.

Foreigners
The Old Testament Law gave the procedure for taking foreigners (Deuteronomy 20:10-11). When making war against a city, Israel was to first extend an offer of peace, in which the city's inhabitants could voluntarily bind themselves over as slaves to Israel. This was more like serfdom than slavery. Foreign women and children could be taken in war, but the women could also be taken as wives (Deuteronomy 21:10-13; Rahab—Matthew 1:5).

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 (Sex Slave?)(Rape?)(both?)

10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and flament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

Exodus 21:2-11 2"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5"But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. 7"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.

(So your wife and children remain slaves forever but you can go free if you want to abandon them to be raped and sold...nice)

Girls (we call this a Felony)
When a girl was sold into slavery, it was usually to marry into the family when she came of age. A father might sell a daughter to benefit the family or to improve the girl's prospects—usually, the girl married into a higher socioeconomic class. Although abuses undoubtedly occurred, the intent was to improve the girl's future. Every girl in that culture faced an arranged marriage; if she was sold, she moved into her husband's house earlier than usual and was provided for long before her wedding.

(That's called Statutory Rape?) (Where the did morals come from that is was not ok to diddle underage girls "Girls not of age"? Not the bible)

(This is a nice conclusion) Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions. (BEACAUSE OF SIN>>>STFU!) (SIN still exists today dumbass, yet no slavery)

 
 
Skrekk
4.1  Skrekk  replied to  DRHunk @4    3 months ago

There's also the story of the genocide of the Midianites (Numbers 31:14-18) where the Hebrews are ordered by god's spokesman to keep the virginal girls as sex slaves but to kill everyone else.

 
 
DRHunk
4.1.1  DRHunk  replied to  Skrekk @4.1    3 months ago

Oh to be a young Jew when God shined his light upon thee, they had it so good. /s

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  DRHunk @4    3 months ago
None of them correspond to modern chattel slaves

I see you conveniently left out Leviticus 25:44 “‘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."

And you forgot Exodus 21:20 "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."

So let's recap, the God of the bible condoned owning slaves in perpetuity with ZERO ability of the slave or the slaves children ever being freed and they were allowed to beat their slaves as long as they didn't kill them. That sounds pretty much like "modern chattel slaves" to me.

You can tell yourself whatever you want to in order to justify your faith, but you can quit trying to convince anyone else that the bible didn't really condone slavery, it obviously did.

 
 
Skrekk
4.2.1  Skrekk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2    3 months ago
You can tell yourself whatever you want to in order to justify your faith, but you can quit trying to convince anyone else that the bible didn't really condone slavery, it obviously did.

Note that DrHunk was actually quoting how Christian extremists justify biblical references to slavery.   Here's a link to it:

https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

It reminds me of the pro-slavery & anti-gay pledge which the Iowa Family Leader group asked GOP presidential candidates to sign a few years ago.   Of course Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum both eagerly signed it.    After that was exposed Bachmann started reciting the sort of lame excuses for slavery which DrHunk cited. 

 
 
DRHunk
4.2.2  DRHunk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2    3 months ago

Thanks Dismayed.

Leviticus 25:44 is a Perfect example.  I knew that passage existed, i had read it before but couldn't remember the book or chapter.  I looked for like 30 min yesterday just for that verse to blow the whole argument "it is not the same as modern chattel slavery" out of the water. I settled for picking apart the sub context on the site.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  DRHunk @4.2.2    3 months ago

I do apologize for mis-characterizing your initial comment, I suppose I didn't focus on the ( ) which made all the difference and just read the supposed defense of biblical slavery and the absence of the scriptures I quoted stood out like a sore thumb. Glad we're all in agreement, biblical slavery was exactly like modern day chattel slavery.

Another thing they claim in their defense I thought was worth noting, is the point about supposed "serfdom" when they say "This was more like serfdom than slavery. Foreign women and children could be taken in war, but the women could also be taken as wives". They apparently don't notice the words "taken", or consider it innocuous. To me it denotes forcible abduction. I wonder how Liam Neesons character would use his "special set of skills" on those pieces of shit child abductors. And the description of shaving a captured females head and stripping her, letting her mourn her mother (aka cry about being abducted from her family) for a month (how considerate /s) then "you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife" doesn't mention anything about her consent, it's the ancient Hebrew God approving abduction and rape. I guess those guys who abducted women and raped them for 20 years in their basement would be considered righteous men by the biblical God standards.

 
 
DRHunk
4.2.4  DRHunk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.3    3 months ago

Yea, the bible uses the term "wife" as justification to rape these women, notice you are also allowed to have more than one "wife" as long as you still treat the other ones nice, maybe that is the morality everyone is talking about. No one and done here, your stuck with her now, unless she doesn't please you, then you can kick her out onto the streets as a penniless emotionally traumatized and no longer virtuous woman. Wonder how far she will get before the next guy decides to "take her as his wife"?

Its all deplorable.

 
 
Skrekk
4.2.5  Skrekk  replied to  DRHunk @4.2.4    3 months ago
notice you are also allowed to have more than one "wife" as long as you still treat the other ones nice

"Nice treatment" includes banishing them from the house when they're menstruating.

 
 
charger 383
5  charger 383    3 months ago

Not having slaves, serfs, peons ect seems to be fairly new in human civilization, look how things were 200-300 years ago and back in biblical times it was very common   

 
 
TᵢG
5.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  charger 383 @5    3 months ago

What do you conclude from that?

 
 
charger 383
5.1.1  charger 383  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    3 months ago

mostly reading history books

 
 
CB
6  CB    3 months ago
Not only does the Bible never show God condemning slavery as immoral but it actually shows God acknowledging and allowing the practice of one human being owning another.

The obvious take away would be to ask why Rabbis, Jews, Christians, and many others in the ancient world, and in modern times, think so highly of God that they can not discern and or blinded to an aspect of God's character that would allow immorality to flourish in the ancient world. Was God real or a "utility"? We should really look at this question.

We can find fault with anything in this life if we look close enough, if fault is what is being sought.

Maybe God does not condemn slavery, of Hebrew or outsiders, because done in the biblical manner slavery was one more tool; maybe, used to discipline ruthless and wild people. Moreover, it did not require the death of the slaves as a means to an end. In plenty of cases, two such I will list, we find:

  • Joseph "enslaved" to Pharaoh and rising through the ranks to be the king's second.
  • Daniel, "enslaved" and eating at the king's table on his rise to become above all the king's men.

Slavery used to serve useful purposes. Yes, there are excess abuses,long-term damaging repercussions, and ultimately loped off limbs, moral decay, and death—when slavery is used to mock and humiliate the individual or people enslaved. Of this we all can and should agree.

 
 
TᵢG
6.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @6    3 months ago
The obvious take away would be to ask why Rabbis, Jews, Christians, and many others in the ancient world thought so highly of this aspect that they did not consider how bad it was on its face. We can find fault with anything in this life if we look close enough, if fault is what is being sought.

One need not even look closely.  This is obvious:

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.

What is odd is the degree to which this obvious statement (the slave is their property) does not register with those who cannot conceive of the possibility that the Bible may not actually be the word of God but rather the words of ancient men pretending to be God.   In the former, God just stated that a person is the property of another.  In the latter, we simply have men writing about the normal mores of the time.

 
 
CB
6.1.1  CB  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    3 months ago

Why would anyone think that. . . intelligent men and women in the ancient world, and great thinkers since, in the faith, did not and can not process the meaning in the word, "property"? Or, could you be exercised over the point that "western-styled" slavery caused much misery, damage, and destruction to our human condition? Tainting the words, "human property."

 
 
CB
6.1.2  CB  replied to  CB @6.1.1    3 months ago

Moreover, and I will have to research it further, being someone else "property" as in marriage is not a bad thing. No one cries foul over the age old expression: Home is the King's castle and he reigns supreme.

The problem does arrive for human property, most definitely, once it became a COMMERCIAL slaver trading, slave-running, endeavor in those affected areas of the world. Of course, then, you lose all touch and feel for the "merchandise."  I'd have to study this aspect more.

 
 
TᵢG
6.1.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @6.1.1    3 months ago
Why would anyone think that. . . intelligent men and women in the ancient world, and great thinkers since, in the faith, did not and can not process the meaning in the word, "property"?

I would think they knew exactly what the word 'property' meant (and means).    Why do you ask?

Or, could you be exercised over the point that "western-styled" slavery caused much misery, damage, and destruction to our human condition? Tainting the words, "human property."

Don't suggest the immorality of slavery [humans as property] is all in my mind.   Not only is that insulting, it makes it look as though you think the owning of another human being as property is really not all that bad.   'Human property' is immoral on its own.

 
 
CB
6.1.4  CB  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.3    3 months ago

"The grandest possible entity" owns everything, humans included. That is, if the grandest possible entity (all lower case) exist!

 
 
TᵢG
6.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @6.1.4    3 months ago
"The grandest possible entity" owns everything, humans included.

We have been talking about human beings owning human beings this entire time.    Starting a new sub-topic?    If so, what point are you trying to make?   Also, probably best to start a new sub-topic in a new thread.

 
 
CB
6.1.6  CB  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.5    3 months ago

No, just flowing with the context of property (ownership).

 
 
Gordy327
6.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  CB @6.1.4    3 months ago

Then the "grandest possible entity" is a slave owner and is therefore immoral (assuming one finds slavery to be immoral).

 
 
TᵢG
6.1.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.7    3 months ago

But since the grandest possible entity is also the arbiter of objective morality, that would make its ownership of human beings moral.   I wonder if that is Cal's new point ... that because God -in a sense- owns all human beings and by definition that is moral that means that human beings owning others is ipso facto moral.

An argument that ownership of a fellow human being as property is moral?   Could that be where this might be heading?

 
 
Gordy327
6.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    3 months ago

That would also be convenient. Of course, that would also mean one cannot say slavery is immoral as long as it's ok with god.

 
 
TᵢG
6.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.9    3 months ago
Of course, that would also mean one cannot say slavery is immoral as long as it's ok with god.

Those exact words were not used, but it seems that has already been hinted.

 
 
Split Personality
6.1.11  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.10    3 months ago

Who really knows what the original exact words were?  They started out as oral tales before they were written down.

These modern books have been translated and re-translated so many tomes that the original nuances, If there were any, have to have been lost int the translations.

 
 
CB
7  CB    3 months ago

Tig, I have a serious question. What emotions are you looking to provoke by having an image of an African in chains overlaying an image of the Bible book? What the United States did to the African slave can not be derived from the biblical text. Beyond holding slaves, the "American slave experience" was a slave-owning unregulated and racial disaster! For an image of slavery gone bad in the ancient world, we could study Egyptian oppression of the burgeoning Jewish people. Not good: Used as a proverb by God when Israel became its own nation.

 
 
TᵢG
7.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7    3 months ago
What emotions are you looking to provoke by having an image of an African in chains overlaying an image of the Bible book?

It was a friggin' graphic I found to accompany the title of this article.  Do a Google search - this was one of the best I found.  Are you suggesting that a dark skinned individual would be uncommon in biblical times?    Better read your history Cal.   And try to stop presuming so much.

 
 
CB
7.1.1  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    3 months ago

Just checkin. It seems a bit dramatic and so I am entitled to ask if it signifies any meaningful thing. No need to get, . . .sensitive.This is slavery, nevertheless. And, we all have read and heard the history of the 'States on slavery. Disturbing.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7    3 months ago
the "American slave experience" was a slave-owning unregulated and racial disaster!

It was highly regulated with all the power in the hands of one racial group who claimed the right to own humans like cattle in perpetuity. They were allowed to do whatever they wished with their slaves other than kill them for which they would be fined. The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350. And killing or enslaving a person of European decent was punishable by death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States

Now where does that sound familiar?

Deuteronomy 24:7 "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."

Leviticus 25:44 “‘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 Israelite's ruthlessly."

Exodus 21:20 "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."

So they had different slavery laws for different races, were allowed to own their slaves indefinitely and were allowed to beat them within an inch of their lives without fear of punishment or fine. I'd call that an unregulated racial disaster for the slaves, wouldn't you?

 
 
CB
7.2.1  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2    3 months ago

Hi Dismayed Patriot,

Deuteronomy 25
1 When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.
2 If the guilty person deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make them lie down and have them flogged in his presence with the number of lashes the crime deserves,
3 but the judge must not impose more than forty lashes. If the guilty party is flogged more than that, your fellow Israelite will be degraded in your eyes.

While this specific law may have been more directly for the Israelites settling a court dispute, the sense of it, which it makes, was further expounded on by the actions of the Jewish people. It was a tradition of the Jews to give "39 lashes less one" in order to not go over the rule, the regulation, by accident. So why do I write this here?

One could speculate the Jewish custom was not to abuse the beating process, in general. I suggest this as a non-Jewish person, who reads Jewish sentiments. Knowing this, I could question such confident assertions like, "were allowed to beat them within an inch of their lives without fear of punishment or fine."

Why not give ancient people the same benefit of the doubt, since we can not know the extent of this cautious warning in the law? Incidentally, this law does not explicitly state anyone was even-ever beat with a rod. It is a law on the books at this point in our discussions. If someone can point to an abuse of the rule—okay! If someone can not, then why should we exaggerate this law without evidence of such abuse?
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.1    3 months ago
Why not give ancient people the same benefit of the doubt, since we can not know the extent of this cautious warning in the law?

Just FYI, over time (well after the OT was penned) the ancient Hebrew societies moderated from the written text.    In other words, societies evolve.   Part of the problem with ancient books such as the Bible is that they are immutable.   Sure, human beings can come up with more modern interpretations but this practice is changing the meaning from original intent.   This is not really a problem if the Bible is seen as simply the writings of ancient men, but if it is viewed as divine then what right does any mere human being have to reinterpret the grandest possible entity?

After all, is it not a bit arrogant to presume any human being can understand God?   Especially since the world is replete with human beings 'understanding God' in profoundly different ways.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.1    3 months ago
If someone can point to an abuse of the rule—okay!

First, I find it insincere to claim that unless we have a slaves direct complaint from 3,000 years ago, we should assume all the slaves owned by ancient Jews were treated like family and well taken care of. The fact is, the rules allowing them to beat their slaves within an inch of their lives was there for a reason, if no slaves were being beaten to death they wouldn't have had to be so specific in their law. And just because it doesn't say "And Joab the slave was beaten with a rod and died" doesn't mean it didn't ever happen. Slavery is slavery is slavery, anyone trying to define different degrees of slavery is doing so with one intent in mind, to justify their own personal faith in a book that they know can't actually be justified.

Second, why give any slaver "the benefit of the doubt"? Even treating your slaves well is still owning humans, it does not somehow redeem slavery.

As Deuteronomy 24:7 said "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."

Notice that abducting or "stealing" an Israelite was considered "evil" while taking women and children from the surrounding nations was perfectly okay. Quite the double standard.

 
 
CB
7.2.4  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.2    3 months ago

The practice we face is flesh is not perfect, and so we strive.You may not appreciate the prospect that flesh and bone can not perfect itself. So we strive in these bodies. Thus, we try and fail. We try and fail. We try and succeed. And, then we accept our lot to live as imperfect beings before a Perfect God.

As for "understanding God," it is safe to say some have not given it a moment's thought: Since such individuals do not acknowledge God or the realm of the Spirit—God's dwelling place.

 
 
CB
7.2.5  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.3    3 months ago
The fact is, the rules allowing them to beat their slaves within an inch of their lives was there for a reason, if no slaves were being beaten to death they wouldn't have had to be so specific in their law.

Bad form. The statement is bad form.

First of all, "beat their slaves within an inch of their lives" is not affirmatively stated in the law. Second, as anybody who is being fair can imagine - there may exist a myriad of reasons to whip or beat a person under one's control (property) from being a stubborn jackass, dangerous person, to harming others (inside or outside) the family. Wide range. That is if one was not looking at the letter of the law -and, dismissing the spirit of the law. 

If one is being fair to the "Book." That one verse 'floats' in a sea of verses which give leeway to understanding the "contract."  Do not maim your human property or the law will grant him/her freedom. Treat your permanent property well, or s/he may run away and you can not call him/her back.  If you kill your human property, you will be punished up to and equaling death. Lastly, if you have someone in your household perpetually it would make so sense to hold an adversarial relation throughout a lifetime.

Who does that?

But, of course, that would be someone who was giving the text benefit of the doubt. Instead of someone seeing God as an enemy. BTW, this is not about you for I do not know or remember your perspectives on God. Peace.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.4    3 months ago
You may not appreciate the prospect that flesh and bone can not perfect itself.

I just noted that societies can (and have) evolved for the better.

As for "understanding God," it is safe to say some have not given it a moment's thought: Since such individuals do not acknowledge God or the realm of the Spirit—God's dwelling place.

You should not presume that those who are not convinced the God of the Bible exists 'have not given it a moment's thought'.   Indeed, I would posit that those who are not persuaded that the God of the Bible exists are on the average more informed about the Bible than the average believer in same.

But, my point was different.   In question form:  who could possibly know the position (intent, rationale, morality, etc.) of the grandest possible entity?    Alternatively:  is it not the epitome of arrogance to proclaim reliable knowledge of the position of the grandest possible entity?   Seems to me the humble position (which, relative to this entity, is appropriate) is to admit that nobody really knows anything.   But, alas, people have been declaring certain knowledge of God for all of recorded history.

And, alas even more, people keep believing these people.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.7  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.5    3 months ago
First of all, "beat their slaves within an inch of their lives" is not affirmatively stated in the law.

Do you really need those exact words?   You cannot see that the example 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.

... states that a master is punished if the slave is beaten to death?    So now what would happen if the master beats the slave to within an inch of his life but the slave does not die?

What does the above scripture say will happen if the slave manages to not die?   It is right there for you to read.

This is the kind of nonsense that makes people shake their head.   Why must I spell this out?    Worse, even after walking through this in baby steps, you very likely will continue to not acknowledge what this law (from God) states.    

 
 
CB
7.2.8  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.6    3 months ago
I just noted that societies can (and have) evolved for the better.

Evolution for the better and "Perfect" are wholly distinct conditions.

You should not presume that those who are not convinced the God of the Bible exists 'have not given it a moment's thought'.   Indeed, I would posit that those who are not persuaded that the God of the Bible exists are on the average more informed about the Bible than the average believer in same.

Oh. Were you thinking about the "God of the Bible"? Because you wrote, "After all, is it not a bit arrogant to presume any human being can understand God?"

—No, ". . .of the Bible" attached.

admit that nobody really knows anything [of God].

Well then, you emphatically state it: you go first. Prove that no one can know anything of God!

 
 
CB
7.2.9  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.7    3 months ago

I will not acknowledge your simple point of view, because I have read the entirety of the Book that is  one. In this regard, I may know what you know not! Furthermore, as a believer I am spiritually integrated into an experience you stand outside of passing judgement upon.

This can be thought of as man or woman reading a book on the most exquisite of tortures, and taking for granted that EVERYBODY mentioned within its pages ought to have experienced the most painful and sorrowful states. It is a pretext, employed to paint a narrative. If you only consider one perspective, all other be damned, then why bother to write articles with a comment section?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.8    3 months ago
Evolution for the better and "Perfect" are wholly distinct conditions.

Remember what you wrote:

calbab @7.2.4  - The practice we face is flesh is not perfect, and so we strive.

You wrote striving for perfection rather than being perfect.   You find striving for perfection fundamentally different from a society evolving for the better?   Same concept.

—No, ". . .of the Bible" attached.

I have to write 'God of the Bible' every single time in order for the concept to be clear?   Really?   (And you avoided the question again, of course.)   When you refer to God, are you referring to something other than the God of the Bible?  If so, set the record straight because your continued defense of the Bible and the God of the Bible makes one think that to you God = 'God of the Bible'.     Eye Roll

Well then, you emphatically state it: you go first. Prove that no one can know anything of God!

Impossible to prove.   If one is going after proof (I was not but you are) then the proof would have to come from those who claim to know God.   Unless someone can give solid evidence (proof is too high of a bar) that they truly know the intent, motives, morality, etc. of the grandest possible entity then their claims are unfounded.  And given what we are talking about (knowledge of the grandest possible entity), such claims are arrogant (unless they turn out to be demonstrably true).

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.11  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.9    3 months ago
If you only consider one perspective, all other be damned, then why bother to write articles with a comment section?

If you cannot deal with disagreement why comment on articles?   Your point is silly.   Ever hear of debate?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.5    3 months ago
First of all, "beat their slaves within an inch of their lives" is not affirmatively stated in the law.

Exodus 21:20 "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."

So you can beat him so bad that it takes several days to recover, are you really going to play semantics on this one? Is it really that important to you to maintain your desired belief as to play little word games over when their law allowed for "beating within an inch of their life" which is a metaphor anyway? No one has "inches" of life obviously. Can you tell me with a straight face that the law stated above does not give those slave owners the right to brutally beat their slaves, so much so it takes days to recover, as long as they don't kill the slave?

"Second, as anybody who is being fair can imagine - there may exist a myriad of reasons to whip or beat a person under one's control (property) from being a stubborn jackass, dangerous person, to harming others (inside or outside) the family."

Now you're just injecting your own unfounded opinions and imagination into scripture. There were many other laws already in place for punishing people for bad behavior, other than "being stubborn" everything you mention already had set punishments under Jewish law. And beating your slave so bad it takes days to recover for being "stubborn" or not doing exactly what you, the master, tells them to, is fucking evil.

"Lastly, if you have someone in your household perpetually it would make so sense to hold an adversarial relation throughout a lifetime."

Tell that to some of the racist slavers of our own recent past. Why can't you simply accept that owning humans, especially in perpetuity, even owning their children if they have any, is evil and there is no true justification you can make to change that. And while I'm sure there were some almost cordial relationships between slaves and masters back 3,000 years ago as well as during the US slave period just 160 years ago, the fact remains there were many who abused the humans they owned while still staying within the law of the time. And biblical law gave them the legal right to beat their slaves daily as long as they didn't permanently maim them or kill them which is beyond evil. Just owning humans is vile enough, no matter how "nice" you treat them.

"But, of course, that would be someone who was giving the text benefit of the doubt. Instead of someone seeing God as an enemy. BTW, this is not about you for I do not know or remember your perspectives on God. Peace."

Why do we have to read into scripture what isn't there and give "the benefit of the doubt"? And I don't see God as an enemy, that would require the Hebrew God actual exists to do that. Once I realized all scripture is inspired of man, not God, it made far more sense as to why the bible would condone such vile behavior. If there is something in this universe we might define as God, a being that was the original cause of our existence, I doubt it has any idea what despicable things mankind has done in its name. I would not hold such a being accountable for the evil found within different races, cultures and religions.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.13  author  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.12    3 months ago
Can you tell me with a straight face that the law stated above does not give those slave owners the right to brutally beat their slaves, so much so it takes days to recover, as long as they don't kill the slave?

Good question.   I wonder if you will get a direct answer.

 
 
CB
7.2.14  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.10    3 months ago
calbab @7.2.4  - The practice we face is flesh is not perfect, and so we strive.

In context, I wrote this:

The practice we face is flesh is not perfect, and so we strive.You may not appreciate the prospect that flesh and bone can not perfect itself. So we strive in these bodies. Thus, we try and fail. We try and fail. We try and succeed. And, then we accept our lot to live as imperfect beings before a Perfect God.

 
 
CB
7.2.15  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.10    3 months ago
When you refer to God, are you referring to something other than the God of the Bible?

Yes, I am referring to God of the Bible.

But you DEFINITELY are referring to something else. You even have a so-called name for your something: "the grandest possible entity" (All lower-cased). Admit it. You wrote this:

After all, is it not a bit arrogant to presume any human being can understand God [the grandest possible entity]

Now a question for you:

Who or what exactly is this "The grandest possible entity" and does 'the grandest possible entity' (All lower-case) really mean anything to you personally?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.16  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.14    3 months ago

So you are not going to acknowledge I was correct, just move on to another point as if you rebutting my observation?   Not Impressed

 
 
CB
7.2.17  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.12    3 months ago
I don't see God as an enemy, that would require the Hebrew God actual exists to do that. Once I realized all scripture is inspired of man, not God, it made far more sense as to why the bible would condone such vile behavior. If there is something in this universe we might define as God, a being that was the original cause of our existence, I doubt it has any idea what despicable things mankind has done in its name.

1. You do not believe the Hebrew God exist. So what qualifies you to speak on it then? I have a vested interest in this subject, what brings you to it?

2. If there is "something in this universe we might define as God," I am sure God would know what man has done IN GOD's Name.

 
 
CB
7.2.18  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.16    3 months ago

You seem to need "approval" at every turn. Only God is perfect.

You are a first and rich for me as I have never heard a man or woman openly suggest that perfection is something evolution is heading towards.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.15    3 months ago
Yes, I am referring to God of the Bible.

When I use 'God' in the future you will thus not be confused if I do not fully quality as 'God of the Bible'?

But you DEFINITELY are referring to something else. You even have a so-called name for your something: "the grandest possible entity" (All lower-cased). Admit it. You wrote this:

Yes, when I use the phrase 'grandest possible entity' that is a generic reference to what people mean by God (across religions).   Now, in your case, are you suggesting that God (i.e. God of the Bible) is NOT the grandest possible entity?    If God (as you use the term) is NOT the grandest possible entity then you might want to weigh in on the entity grander than God (i.e. God of the Bible) in your mind.

Really, Cal, this should not confuse you in the slightest unless you do not consider God the grandest possible entity.

Who or what exactly is this "The grandest possible entity" and does 'the grandest possible entity' (All lower-case) really mean anything to you personally?

Yes.  It is a placeholder for the hypothetical creator of everything.   What else could it possibly mean?  That is, what other options did you have in mind that caused my phrase to be ambiguous to you?  How many 'grandest possible entities' could there be?   (answer: 1)

 
 
CB
7.2.20  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.11    3 months ago

Total, utter, and does not change one iota disagreements? You are not having a debate, it appears you are exerting a privilege to hold open an echo chamber. Religion is a lost cause to you and you can not relate to it or its adherents. Yet, when what is explained, expounded, illuminated, is shared you receive nothing of it. If you mind is made up and you have no appetite to learn 'what you know not' then what are doing, 'Teacher'?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.21  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.18    3 months ago
You seem to need "approval" at every turn. Only God is perfect.

I think I will let others talk to you until you can address the points.   The above is non-sequitur, projection and fabrication.    It is as though you are just tossing out nonsense.   It would be far better to simply not respond.  IMO

Total, utter, and does  ....

Okay all emotions now on your side.   I think this is a good time to stop.

 
 
CB
7.2.22  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.19    3 months ago
"the grandest possible entity" 

1. Where did you find this nomenclature?

2. Do you use it for the God of the Bible?

3. Do you use it as a reference to the deist God at any time in the past?

4. Is it in-kind with, "Higher Power" or "Powers that Be"?

 
 
CB
7.2.23  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.21    3 months ago

Just as I stated. I am called nonsensical and silly writing; but, you are emotional-less and clarity? I do not define your arguments as "nonsense" and "silly." If I have, can you point me to it, please?

Only God is perfect.

 
 
CB
7.2.24  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.12    3 months ago

What I will tell you is what the Bible in totality informs my perceptions of God. Furthermore, if you or anyone else need me to be a horrible "monster" who disagrees with your concept of an immoral, villainous, God, then, so be it. I choose to associate myself with God, Rabbis, Pastors, Great thinkers of the Bible, and the Christian faith!

 
 
CB
7.2.25  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.21    3 months ago

And somebody here is reciting from "Evil Bible."

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.26  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.14    3 months ago
Thus, we try and fail. We try and fail. We try and succeed. And, then we accept our lot to live as imperfect beings before a Perfect God.

But those laws were supposed to be coming from a "perfect God" who was, by making those laws, condoning human trafficking, slavery and violence. If that's supposed "perfection" I would have to seriously doubt the source as divine.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.27  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.17    3 months ago
You do not believe the Hebrew God exist. So what qualifies you to speak on it then? I have a vested interest in this subject, what brings you to it?

I've read the bible cover to cover many times in my life, I was a pastor for over a decade, it was only through having a "vested interest" that I have examined it thoroughly and concluded those who had indoctrinated me in this faith were but fallible men pushing a fallible doctrine.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything here, the scriptures are clear. You're the one trying to convince others that the scriptures are divine but having to inject imaginary scenarios where scriptures might have meant something different so as to justify the brutality, the rape, the incest, the slavery.

And does it really require unfounded faith in order to "speak" on these things? Are only those who believe allowed to read and interpret scripture? And I notice that instead of addressing any of my points you dismiss me as not being "qualified" to challenge you on your interpretation which I frankly find preposterous and insulting.

 
 
CB
7.2.28  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.26    3 months ago

So now we are on to human "trafficking" and violence as an OT Jewish norm?

All the other passages of scriptures are simply looked over and strewn aside as meaningless to the Bible narrative? What kind of fools do you take informed believers to be? We can reason from our scriptures. Even as we all reason in nature. We do can do so, because we are spiritually-infused to do so. We find meanings for life in the Bible, where you see only words on a page.

We have "quarters" in the Bible's spiritual messages. And DP, those passages which we read and we read and we read, to this day do not render us of a view we should take slaves unto ourselves since liberty has fully arrived.

Like airplanes and nuclear weapons would have no place in Old Testament times, ownership of slaves is from a bygone era. God allows us space to learn and school, uses various institutions to punish the wicked, and allow the stubbornness of mankind to find its own way to a higher level. It is God's prerogative.

If the writers of the Books had feared modern man's higher and lower criticisms of them, I'd reckon those writers would have left out or "mellowed" the tone of the Old Testament and the New Testament both. So, at the end of the day, it is what it is.

Acting as an agent to say, "If then - than that," ignores facts surrounding this argument being made by some: Rabbis, pastors, great-thinkers, and a myriad of believers-living and dead have openly and repeatedly declared and confessed, declare and confess, the life-changing realities in each individual experience. Yet, there be some who would classify all these people, us, delusional on this single aspect of our character. It does not fit the truth occurring before your eyes!

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.29  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.24    3 months ago
if you or anyone else need me to be a horrible "monster" who disagrees with your concept of an immoral, villainous, God, then, so be it.

That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply proposing that when seriously studied and researched, the bible reveals it's true authors, fallible man, which is why it has so many inconsistencies and incongruities. Those men who wrote the bible and its laws were the villainous and immoral ones. If a God exists, it had nothing to do with the authorship of this or any other book written by man that I've read so far. While just about any religious book ever written can be dissected and you can glean valuable moral guidelines, none are infallible yet virtually all of them contain moral truths.

"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." - Ancient Egyptian law

"Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself." - Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9 (Sanskrit tradition)

"Do not do to others what you know has hurt yourself" - Part on Virtue of the Tirukkuṛa 200bc, (Tamil tradition)

"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " - Sextus the Pythagorean (Ancient Greece)

"Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you." - Seneca the Younger (Ancient Rome)

"Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:18 (Judaism)

"Do to others what you would want them to do to you." Luke 6:31 (Christianity)

"Pay, Oh Children of Adam, as you would love to be paid, and be just as you would love to have justice!" Qur'an 83:1-6 (Islam)

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self." - Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Hinduism)

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." -  Udanavarga 5:18 (Buddhism)

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated." - Sutrakritanga, 1.11.33 (Jainism)

"If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart." - Guru Arjan Dev Ji 259, Guru Granth Sahib (Sikhism)

"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." - Confucius, Analects XV.24 (Confucianism)

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." -  T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien (Taoism)

"If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another?" -  Mozi, c. 400 BC (Mohism)

"Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29 (Zoroastrianism)

"I command thee thus, O children of the Earth, that that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another, for violence and hatred give rise to the same. " -  The Book of Ways (Wicca)

"One who is going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts." - Yoruba Proverb (Yoruba)

My point is, some read the bible and see a great scripture that speaks to them and has a great moral truth, and so they start their path to belief. But the fact is that same moral truth is available in a dozen other forms and a dozen other faiths, it does not mean the rest of any books written by man are divinely inspired and certainly should have us forgiving and defending parts of the books that are indefensible, you can take the good and leave the bad because while some of the authors were very wise men, they wrote their books from their perspectives and in the society of the time which likely made sense to them at the time but when examined against the whole of human history were just expedient ways to deal with issues of their day.

Do not mistake finding a moral truth with finding divinely inspired wisdom. Take the good things from the bible, apply them in your life, but leave the bad and stop trying to justify it, it's not necessary.

 
 
CB
7.2.30  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.27    3 months ago

Your points? That deciphering of information coming from "Evil Bible"?  Those writers at Evil Bible have a point of view.  I have a different world view. As to my trying to persuade anyone; my motive is clear if only to me. I am defending my beliefs against people who demonstrate often intentions to shred, deny, and mock the same. 

Whether you or anyone else comes to a saving knowledge of God through anything I write or example on these boards is secondary at best, and not my concern at the least! Try to get clear on this one thing-if not the rest.

As to your background. Well, sorry that happened to you.  But, it gives you no validity because you read it and then walked away. And, it gives me no validity because I read the Bible and stay. Our credibility lies in our actions alone.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.31  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.28    3 months ago
And DP, those passages which we read and we read and we read, to this day do not render us of a view we should take slaves unto ourselves since liberty has fully arrived.

Yet within the last 160 years self proclaimed Christians were using the bible to justify the taking and owning of slaves. Are you suggesting that just now, in the last century, "liberty" has finally arrived and thus no one should use those scriptures to justify slavery anymore? For nearly 2,000 years they've been used that way, but now no one would ever dream of doing such a thing?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.32  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.30    3 months ago
That deciphering of information coming from "Evil Bible"?  Those writers at Evil Bible have a point of view. 

What are you talking about? What or who is "Evil Bible"?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.33  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.30    3 months ago
I have a different world view. As to my trying to persuade anyone; my motive is clear if only to me. I am defending my beliefs against people who demonstrate often intentions to shred, deny, and mock the same. 

No one was mocking you, or even talking to you, when we quoted scriptures and pointed out how horrid some of those scriptures were. You jumped in to attempt a defense of the indefensible. I don't believe you own slaves or have ever beaten a slave, I wasn't accusing you of anything, you do not need to take this so personally. But I can tell how much it bothers you to have the bible exposed such that you need to jump to its defense and twist, turn and contort your reasoning to be able to keep supporting something that is so clearly wrong to virtually every other person reading those passages. And like I have tried to point out, that doesn't mean the bible is devoid of all value, it's simply a recognition that you can get both valid moral guidance and apply it to your life while leaving behind the parts that are rather abhorrent. The Koran is the same, much of it has moral wisdom's, then there are some parts that would make most peoples hair curl. Take the good, leave the bad, but don't try to claim the bad isn't actually bad because of some invented rational.

 
 
CB
7.2.34  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.29    3 months ago

First, I am not justifying slavery. It is not for me, but as you can plainly discern I do not live in the Middle East (I live in the U.S.) and I do not live in a time of slavery. But, I do not 'drift' into the Ancient World in an attempt to 'graft' onto myself how they felt about their situations and circumstances. For instance, 2000 years from now someone may ask why did 20th century man think it moral to drop bombs on Japan instead of finding a better solution or some such thing? Times are what they are. We do not know the full intent of the divine. And any set of wise Christians would appreciate that s/he/they do not know the full counsel of God's thoughts for us.

But, if we are spiritually reborn, we know that. That is much and not to be ignored.

In Hebrews it states this: Hebrews 1: "1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe."

Of course! God spoke to different nations and different people tribes and places throughout the ancient world. Abraham, himself, was not born a Jew. He was from Ur. Moreover, Act 17: "26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27  God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’b As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’c"

In some translations the worlds, "one blood" is used. We are all the same source. God has been speaking to mankind all along (in various ways) from the beginning of our ability to understand. Moreover, even in Leviticus in taking land from one tribe and "deeding" it to the other, God points out that much about God has been shared with these groups of people. . .to no avail. Thus, they were to be removed from their lands—which really was not theirs to anyway.

So yes, there were stories, themes, and narratives aplenty across many "ages" about the One God. That is if you can accept this. I can. Because I am one of those people who has been spiritually renewed.

 
 
CB
7.2.35  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.33    3 months ago
But I can tell how much it bothers you to have the bible exposed such that you need to jump to its defense and twist, turn and contort your reasoning to be able to keep supporting something that is so clearly wrong to virtually every other person reading those passages.

"Life" can make your hair curl—apart from any notion of God.

I 'parachuted into this article with Tig. You "barged-in," see I can deploy the negative too! Rather, you entered (smile) of your own choice to address me. It had been my intention all along to go follow my norm and go up to the top of the thread and come down--no leeway to do it has presented itself. I do not even know what anybody besides Tig (and the first several commenters) has written! By the way, I do know it is better all-around to read the whole thread-as a matter of "good form." (Smile.)

You are not exposing the Bible to me. I have been studying the Bible continuously and a host of other books besides for decades now. Do not presume to know my history with the Bible.

It's late. Good night.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.36  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.34    3 months ago
Abraham, himself, was not born a Jew. He was from Ur.

So the father of Isaac, grandfather of Isaac's 12 sons who became the 12 tribes of Israel, grandfather of Jacob who was renamed "Israel" and thus creating the "Israelite's", was of a different ethnicity than his grandsons and all those who supposedly descended from him? Abraham's also the father of Islam, Jews and Muslims are ancient cousins from the same family tree, does that mean the Koran is also inspired of the same Hebrew God who supposedly made a covenant with Abraham? 

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.37  author  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.27    3 months ago
I'm not trying to convince you of anything here, the scriptures are clear. You're the one trying to convince others that the scriptures are divine but having to inject imaginary scenarios where scriptures might have meant something different so as to justify the brutality, the rape, the incest, the slavery.

This IMO is the critical observation.

Defending the Bible as divine would frustrate anyone.   The Bible was written by ancient men sans guidance from God - just men pretending to be God.   If one were to read the Bible as the work of ancient men separated by time and culture, packaged together and deemed 'holy', all the imperfections are easily explained.  The Bible is exactly what one would expect under those conditions. 

Trying to find a way to make the words of ancient men all fit together as if they came from a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, loving God is an act of futility.

 
 
CB
7.2.38  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.31    3 months ago

If only God would have told us to not explode bombs over our and the children's heads! If only God would order nature not to decimate us. If only God would decree death to step down from the stately office.If only God had stated that we should treat each other equally and without malice.

If only. . . .

Yet, through all of life, people are being changed and attributing the change to the Spirit. Why?  As for what some men do, well, you are studied in the Bible. You above many should understand that evil people can read the Bible and 'fish' out of it justifications to make lives miserable and better. 

I will not discuss with you how the world became what and how it is. That is not my (or your) role here.

 
 
CB
7.2.39  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.32    3 months ago

Evil Bible .com

Slavery

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do.  Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.  The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants.  Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is.  While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.’  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.  What kind of family values are these?

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery.  How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values!  A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves?  It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


So what is being 'delivered' here is not original thought or discussion. It is people sharing a different set of ideas which spread much like ideas spread in the ancient world from tribe to tribes.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.40  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.39    3 months ago

Do you acknowledge that the above quotes are from the Bible?   If so, your comment seems to be supporting the posit of this article:  " In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral."

That cannot be the case, thus apparently (somehow, inexplicably) you think that any expose of the Bible is some sort of conspiracy yet do not recognize that the 'conspiracy' is nothing more than quoting what is in the Bible.   

When you read the above quotes, what goes through your mind?    'Indentured servants getting a time out?'    Do you truly not see human beings owning others as property and, by the way, treating them in an inhumane manner?

 
 
CB
7.2.41  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.36    3 months ago

Ur of the Chaldees existed in Babylonia ; Abraham was born named Abram; he was a 75 year old Babylonian at the time of his calling. God, from one man (Abram) created a great people the Jewish nation (Abraham). Abraham was the first in this Jewish lineage. And, by our standards today, he was already an old man.

 
 
CB
7.2.42  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.40    3 months ago

IN ANSWER TO YOUR REPEAT QUESTIONS. What I see is people trading on other people's negativity; people using the Jewish people of ancient times as scrapegoats; people trying to exploit a few verses out of the entirety of the Bible which we now have. That is what I see. And, I know better.

Evil Bible.com is a clever play on words and it takes advantage of people who are already seeking to deconstruct God, Jesus, Spirit, and belief. Sadly, it seeks to do so by compartmentalizing and accenting the negative while ignoring the voluminous positives. I have no time or interest in so-called "wise" modernists who pretend to know more about others living in the past than those living in and closer to the times in question can write and state about themselves!

Rabbis and many great thinkers have explained the Jewish practice of slavery:

  • How it afforded principles of human dignity in slavery. Slaves ran their master's businesses; held high offices, ran governments, served in important positions; thus they were knowledgeable and important to society. Not simply filthy REFUGE and toilers.
  • Slave trading was condemned in Israel. (I Timothy 1:10)
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.43  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.42    3 months ago
... people trying to exploit a few verses out of the entirety of the Bible ...

Do you reject the idea that these verses are the word of God - do you hold that they are simply words from men?   If so, no problem.   But if you insist that these are the words of God then your claim of 'exploitation' is demonstrably wrong.   What is happening is illustration, not exploitation.

Your apparent argument has been:  'Yes these are the words of God but you are reading out of context ... the quoted scripture does not mean what the words state ... this is not really slavery slavery but more of an indentured servant and the beatings were not really beatingsFinally, property is not really property - ignore that word'.

The scripture shows (if you take this to be the word of God):

  • God did not condemn slavery as immoral
  • God made rules for proper enslavement
  • God recognized slavery is a human being owning another as property
  • God acknowledged that slaves are beaten - sometimes beaten to death

Trying to deny hard facts is an act of futility.  

 
 
CB
7.2.44  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.43    3 months ago

Evil Bible.com takes advantage of people who are already seeking to deconstruct God, Jesus, Spirit, and belief. Sadly, it does so by compartmentalizing and accenting the negative while ignoring the voluminous positives. I have no time or interest in so-called "wise" modernists who pretend to know more about others living in the past than those living in and closer to the times in question can write and state about themselves!

Rabbis and many great thinkers have explained the Jewish practice of slavery:

  • How it afforded principles of human dignity in slavery. Slaves ran their master's businesses; held high offices, ran governments, served in important positions; thus they were knowledgeable and important to society. Not simply filthy REFUGE and toilers.
  • Slave trading was condemned in Israel. (I Timothy 1:10)

  • Slavery in and of itself is not immoral, apparently when it is done with regulations. But continue to ignore this aspect.
  • God did make laws governing holding other people as property.
  • God does consider other people to be God's property; the world to be God's world, to which God can do as God pleases.
  • God does acknowledge slaves can be beaten (sometimes rightly so I am sure—men have wars after all), but when they die from a beating, the master causing the death is punished up to loss of his/her own life!
  • God also released the maim or "damaged" slave from bondage to free man or free woman status.
  • God allows mistreated slaves to RUNAWAY or leave the bondage of bad masters. So if a slave dislikes one service remove him/herself to another. 
  • God instructed Jews to not mistreat slaves.

But we won't read any of this from Evil Bible adherents.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.45  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.44    3 months ago
Evil Bible.com

I never heard of that website until you mentioned it.   Thus it is simply a deflection.

Rabbis and many great thinkers have explained the Jewish practice of slavery:

You can sugar coat this all you wish, but that does not change the fact that God acknowledged that a human being can be property of another and did not declare that immoral.

Plus on one hand you try to redefine slavery to be all or even mostly indentured servitude (slaves running business operations) and express it as actually a good deal for the slaves and then immediately run to 1 Timothy 1:10 and claim that slavery is condemned.    

Is slavery good, Cal, or is it something that should be condemned?    You are all over the map.


And on your claim that the NT condemned slave trading I wonder if you noticed that the passage implicitly supports the practice of slavery.   Face Palm

1 Timothy 1:10

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

For fornicators, for males who lie down with males, for kidnappers of free men, for liars, for oath breakers and for all things opposed to the sound teaching

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

The passage was referring to those who steal people and sell them into slavery.   Kind of like outlawing horse-theft while embracing horse ownership.

Futility.   Given this is the best you can offer, does this not cause even a trace of doubt in your mind that maybe the Bible is not really the word of your true God?   As I have noted numerous times, if someone is going to contort themselves into pretzels to try to explain the inexplicable why not just put the Bible aside and explain God as you understand Him?   You (or Drakk) noted the need for the Holy Spirit to give you the proper interpretation anyway so why not just understand God through your direct Holy Spirit channel and hold the words of ancient men to simply be the words of ancient men?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.46  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.44    3 months ago
Slavery in and of itself is not immoral, apparently when it is done with regulations. But continue to ignore this aspect.

Is that your position??   Slavery in and of itself is not immoral??

God did make laws governing holding other people as property.

Yes, I have made that point repeatedly.   God made laws about holding people as property but not against holding people as property.

God does consider other people to be God's property; the world to be God's world, to which God can do as God pleases.

Probably.   Not sure how you know the mind of God, but it is logical that the creator would hold His creations as His property.   How is this relevant?

God does acknowledge slaves can be beaten (sometimes rightly so I am sure—men have wars after all), but when they die from a beating, the master causing the death is punished up to loss of his/her own life!

Yes.  As I have repeatedly noted.   So recognize that God allows a master to beat a slave up to (but not going past) the point of death.   You realize that, right?   And the punishment to the master is nothing.

God also released the maim or "damaged" slave from bondage to free man or free woman status.

Yes.   So if it is God in this verse then it is also God a few verses up.  Right?    Also, God seems to be confused.

God allows mistreated slaves to RUNAWAY or leave the bondage of bad masters. So if a slave dislikes one service remove him/herself to another. 

And thus God yet again acknowledges human beings owning another as property and offers rules rather than condemning the practice as immoral.  (The point of this article.)

God instructed Jews to not mistreat slaves.

Go ahead and keep other human beings as your property but do not mistreat them.   Yet another point where God condones slavery.   (The point of the article.)

 
 
Skrekk
7.2.47  Skrekk  replied to  CB @7.2.44    3 months ago
Evil Bible.com takes advantage of people who are already seeking to deconstruct God, Jesus, Spirit, and belief. Sadly, it does so by compartmentalizing and accenting the negative while ignoring the voluminous positives.

Actually all that website does is quote some of the more charming biblical passages in their full context, and it gives some relevant commentary.   I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

 
 
CB
7.2.48  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.45    3 months ago
Evil Bible.com
I never heard of that website until you mentioned it.   Thus it is simply a deflection.

Oh. So, that site is a "deflection" because you have never heard of it?  I can see how alarming it can be that some here are practically quoting the site verbatim, without acknowledging it. So informed, perhaps Somebody should look into that sort of thing.

 
 
CB
7.2.49  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.45    3 months ago
immediately run to 1 Timothy 1:10 and claim that slavery is condemned.

'Er, this is what I wrote, . . .simply:

  • Slave trading was condemned in Israel. (I Timothy 1:10).

My statement is plain and clear.

 Kind of like outlawing horse-theft while embracing horse ownership.

Okay. Like what?

 
 
CB
7.2.50  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.45    3 months ago
Is slavery good, Cal, or is it something that should be condemned? 

FINAL ANSWER, TiG:

  • Slavery as we know it in the western experience is not good. Thus, it should be condemned for all times. Plain and simple.
  • Rabbis and many great thinkers have explained the Jewish practice of slavery:

    • How it afforded principles of human dignity in slavery. Slaves ran their master's businesses; held high offices, ran governments, served in important positions; thus they were knowledgeable and important to society. Even circumcised and thereby being treated as members of the Jewish household. Not simply as filthy REFUGE and toilers.
 
 
CB
7.2.51  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.45    3 months ago
And on your claim that the NT condemned slave trading I wonder if you noticed that the passage implicitly supports the practice of slavery.

Er', . . . see 7.2.49 , please!

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.52  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.48    3 months ago
So, that site is a "deflection" because you have never heard of it?

No.   

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.53  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.49    3 months ago
My statement is plain and clear.

Yeah that was my mistake, I meant to type 'condemned slave trading' - and right below it I did indeed type 'slave trading':

And on your claim that the NT condemned slave trading

I typed slavery instead of slave trading.  And then went on to discuss slave trading.  So no way you could possibly not realize that my focus was on slave trading.   But you cherry-picked without even considering the immediate correction.   Reading for comprehension Cal or just trying to dishonestly nit pick?

 
 
CB
7.2.54  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.46    3 months ago
 Slavery in and of itself is not immoral??

Why are you repeating this question throughout the thread? I am compelled to ask this, because you chew me out repeatedly for not answering your questions and when I do, well, you invariably ask the same question over and over again. HEY! IS EVERYTHING OKAY ON YOUR END OF THIS TRANSMISSION?!

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.55  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.54    3 months ago
Why are you repeating this question throughout the thread?

Because you keep tossing out mixed signals.   Your answers are all over the map.   So when you make a statement such as:

calbab @7.2.44 - Slavery in and of itself is not immoral, apparently when it is done with regulations. But continue to ignore this aspect.

Such a statement will be confirmed via a question to ensure you really want to go on record as personally deeming slavery to not be, in and of itself, immoral.   Think carefully about this.

 
 
CB
7.2.56  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.46    3 months ago
Probably.   Not sure how you know the mind of God, but it is logical that the creator would hold His creations as His property.   How is this relevant?

How is it not relevant to a topic about God and the world and all that is in it? Curious. I can know because of my beliefs; plus, I have a Bible—-that book you are attempting to use to label God as "immoral."

You would have an interestingly hard time deconstructing God without the Bible, you know. /s

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.57  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.56    3 months ago
How is it not relevant to a topic about God and the world and all that is in it?

Because the topic is God not condemning people owning people as property.   Nobody has questioned God considering his creations property.   That solely came from you.   Totally different matter.    God owning people is profoundly different from people owning people.   See?

You would have an interestingly hard time deconstructing God without the Bible, you know.

I have nothing against God (as in the grandest possible entity).   However, I have plenty of issues with the Bible - first and foremost is its absurd claim of divinity.   

 
 
CB
7.2.58  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.46    3 months ago
God does acknowledge slaves can be beaten (sometimes rightly so I am sure—men have wars after all), but when they die from a beating, the master causing the death is punished up to loss of his/her own life! - Calbab.
Yes.  As I have repeatedly noted.   So recognize that God allows a master to beat a slave up to (but not going past) the point of death.   You realize that, right?   And the punishment to the master is nothing. -TiG.

". . .a master to beat a slave up to (but not going past) the point of death.  You realize that, right?"

Okay. Like what?!  Who does that?

"And the punishment to the master is nothing."

You agreed in your "Yes." quote above that, ". . .when they [a slave/s] die from a beating, the master causing the death is punished up to loss of his/her own life!

I think somebody needs a rewrite!

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.59  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.58    3 months ago

What about my comment has confused you?    Your response is incoherent.  

 
 
CB
7.2.60  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.53    3 months ago

 You explained you do not get emotional about this stuff, and then you accuse me of "Reading for comprehension or just trying to dishonestly nit pick?" Now that is an emotional outburst. You, who are so ready to point out other people's missteps in precise communications. But I won't bristle. I'll just deploy one of those emoticons you are fond of:  LOL Mixed signals!

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.61  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.60    3 months ago

Face Palm

 
 
Skrekk
7.2.62  Skrekk  replied to  CB @7.2.50    3 months ago
Rabbis and many great thinkers have explained the Jewish practice of slavery:

Ah, that explains it.    Normal slavery is bad (despite the bible never condemning it), but the Jewish version is OK where you can beat your slaves within a inch of their life.

 
 
CB
7.2.63  CB  replied to  Skrekk @7.2.47    3 months ago

About EvilBible.com

EvilBible.com is a non-profit web site which was developed to promote atheism by revealing the wicked truth about the Bible and religion.

The above is from the site's About page: "Atheism," "Wicked truth." "Bible." I'd say they are more than a tad bit biased against the Bible, religion, and God. Would'nt you?

 
 
Skrekk
7.2.64  Skrekk  replied to  CB @7.2.63    3 months ago
The above is from the site's About page: "Atheism," "Wicked truth." "Bible." I'd say they are more than a tad bit biased against the Bible, religion, and God. Would'nt you?

I'd say they oppose the bible because they've actually read it.    That's why they quote from it because the text itself proves how vile this superstition really is.

It's also interesting that in this thread you've been defending slavery as it's portrayed in the bible and trivializing the horror which slavery really is.    I thought you were smarter than to get sucked into that aspect of the discussion and try to defend the utterly indefensible.

 
 
CB
7.2.65  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.57    3 months ago
God owning people is profoundly different from people owning people.   See?

ANSWER: No, I don't see.

All this time my understanding of your complain involves God's immoral  character—not any diabolically laws created by Jewish leadership. So, you sure you were not coming after God?

Moreover, how do you agree to God owning all the Earth, when you state that nothing of God can be KNOWN?  LOL Mixed signals!


For the record, these are your words:

The scripture shows (if you take this to be the word of God):

  • God did not condemn slavery as immoral
  • God made rules for proper enslavement
  • God recognized slavery is a human being owning another as property
  • God acknowledged that slaves are beaten - sometimes beaten to death

 
 
CB
7.2.66  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.61    3 months ago

LOL Mixed signals!

 
 
CB
7.2.67  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.59    3 months ago
. .a master to beat a slave up to (but not going past) the point of death.  You realize that, right?"

Please explain how it is possible to beat someone past death and it would matter in a significant way. The modifying parenthetical renders your statement a tad "nonsensical."

 
 
CB
7.2.68  CB  replied to  Skrekk @7.2.62    3 months ago
Normal slavery

Give me your best definition of the above, please.  Qualifiers and all.

 
 
CB
7.2.69  CB  replied to  Skrekk @7.2.64    3 months ago
I'd say they oppose the bible because they've actually read it.    That's why they quote from it because the text itself proves how vile this superstition really is. It's also interesting that in this thread you've been defending slavery as it's portrayed in the bible and trivializing the horror which slavery really is.    I thought you were smarter than to get sucked into that aspect of the discussion and try to defend the utterly indefensible.
  1. The first paragraph. Rhetoric.
  2. The second paragraph. To it I say: I will not discuss your 'smarts' if you don't discuss my 'smarts'!
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.70  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.67    3 months ago
Please explain how it is possible to beat someone past death ...

Past death?  Surely you mean past the point of death - the line that when crossed means death.   Here is how it works.   If you stay before the point of death then death has not occurred.   Pass that point and they are dead.   Think of blowing up a balloon.   All is fine until you surpass the pop point.

 
 
CB
7.2.71  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.70    3 months ago

Please explain how it is possible to beat someone past the point of death. . . . .  And, share with us how it matters?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.72  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.71    3 months ago
Please explain how it is possible to beat someone past the point of death. . . . .  And, share with us how it matters?

Cal I think it is time to cease with this silliness.   It is not fortifying whatever point you think you are making.   

The point of this article is characterized by the article's distinguished quote:

In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral.

I suggest you try to make a topical point or call it a day.

 
 
CB
7.2.73  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.72    3 months ago

Sure, now I am guilty of silliness, while you say whatever you wish and push aside all other relevant comments and debate. No thanks for shutting me up! Incidentally, are you one of the members who warns others about creating echo chambers?! Try not to discuss me, instead of the topic okay?

In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral.

God is above all, do you think God is an immoral Spirit?

 
 
lennylynx
7.2.74  lennylynx  replied to  CB @7.2.73    3 months ago

No Cal, he's not commenting on 'God' at all, but rather, how the bible portrays God.  The bible portrays God as a cruel and sadistic homicidal maniac who makes Hitler look like a pussycat...but he's a god of love!  I've never understood how Christians square that circle.

 
 
CB
7.2.75  CB  replied to  lennylynx @7.2.74    3 months ago
I've never understood how Christians square that circle.

Hi Lennlynx, one day your spirit can just open up and things which did not interest or confuse you now began to come into a new focus. "Spiritual awakening, it's called." At that point, a person should become aware that none of this is truly about himself/herself. It is all a much bigger picture. My friend.

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.76  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.73    3 months ago

Given that you are well aware that TiG does not believe God exists, you know that TiG isn't going to consider him to be "above all".

If slavery is immoral, AND is condoned by God as portrayed in the Bible, then God is portrayed as immoral in the Bible.  Moral beings don't condone immoral practices.

 
 
CB
7.2.77  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.76    3 months ago

Hi Sandy, if only anything about God was less complex. Anyway, I have supplied plenty of discussion on God, morality, immorality, and slavery as in issue up above. Can you read it there and ask any question you may have afterwards? 

You are speaking for Tig, . . .are you sure he is okay with it?

In the interest of my own hand health, can we move the discussion forward to the next level here and now:

If you say that God is immoral, and "moral beings don't condone immoral practices," then are you prepared to state the Jewish people were immoral for owning slaves?

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.78  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.77    3 months ago

I've read the entire thread, and have no questions. 

And yes, I find the owning of another person, in any time period, to be immoral.  Some people defend their immorality with ink and parchment and call it God, but it's still immoral. Just like rape and genocide are always immoral, even when you (generic you) claim to have God's blessing to rape and kill, which the ancient Hebrews did, as well.

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.79  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.77    3 months ago

Also, I'm fairly sure TiG agrees with me that a nonexistent God would have an extremely difficult time being "above" ANYTHING, let alone EVERYTHING, and as to the rest of my statement regarding TiG's position, well, he's been saying God as portrayed in the Bible is immoral for the entire conversation, with a long history of the same.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.80  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.77    3 months ago
You are speaking for Tig, . . .are you sure he is okay with it?

Yup

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.81  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.77    3 months ago
... are you prepared to state the Jewish people were immoral for owning slaves?

I certainly am.  Absolutely.  It is immoral to own another person as property.

 
 
CB
7.2.82  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.78    3 months ago

That is a solemn, straightforward reply. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. Of course, I consider God to exist, God to be moral in all that God does of necessity, and that, well that there are plenty of concepts and conducts humanity (me included) may wish to do, but we do not do them. Because, there is a sense, a stage of understanding where we learn objective truths which fits the bodies we inhabit. In other words, a natural man or woman can only be that person; a spiritual man or woman can not ignore spiritual revelation. I could even say such a person is "captive" to the Spirit.

To my understanding, Judaism did not practice slavery as it existed in the 16th century slave codes in the American colonies. The practices are wholly separate and distinct. Remember we are discussing BC, shifting into AC, and coming forward to the 21st century worldview. A lot has changes in people and yes, we have grown in our understanding of what God wants from us—without God mashing us into the dust to start all over again.

More later. Really nice speaking with you. Good night.

 
 
CB
7.2.83  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.81    3 months ago

Thank you for a straightforward answer. For now, good night.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.84  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.82    3 months ago
Judaism did not practice slavery as it existed in the 16th century slave codes in the American colonies. The practices are wholly separate and distinct.

Indeed.   Slavery has taken many forms over the centuries.  

One thing in common, however, is a human being owning another human being as property.     Regardless of any other factors, humans owning humans as property is immoral.

 
 
mocowgirl
7.2.85  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.84    3 months ago
Regardless of any other factors, humans owning humans as property is immoral.

Jewish men "own" their wives according to this article on Jewish marriage.  That stance is kinda disregarded, but it appears that some people want it changed.

https://www.thejc.com/judaism/features/are-jewish-weddings-sexist-and-outdated-1.64746

When it comes to Jewish weddings, the tension between tradition and change goes much further than just the question of same-sex relations. In modern terms, the legal principle that underpins Jewish marriage is highly politically incorrect. But does this mean we should change it?

There is no question about the sanctity of a Jewish marriage. We call the betrothal kiddushin, meaning "sanctification". But what we are sanctifying is a man's acquisition of a woman. When the groom places a ring on the bride's finger and declares "Behold you are betrothed to me… according to the law of Moses and Israel", this is a formal acquisition. She is now, in legal terms, under his control.

And when we read the ketubah at the ceremony, we are reciting the terms of a contract which the couple enter into, a contract which confirms the man's acquisition and which protects the rights of the woman.

Jewish marriage is based on the ancient principle that a woman is the property of her husband. This, in turn, is a consequence of the different status that men and women had in the pre-modern world. It is clearly out of step with modern Western society.
 
 
CB
7.2.86  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.84    3 months ago

I am glad we can agree that, "Slavery has taken many forms over the centuries." That advances the discussion. I truly appreciate that.

The fact is, there are positives and negatives to be considered to every issue of life on this planet.

God can intervene and take over, thus all harm to anyone we would like to think would end. I, along with many others, would be pleased to see that day! On the other-hand, the "cosmic" plan of God seems to be so much larger than holding our hands, and firmly steering us, out of the ditches of our earthly existences. 

If we say that God is immoral and the people of ancient Israel are immoral, and slavery was pervasive in the ancient world, then, where is an objective standard? Morality, by definition, in these circumstances, becomes relative morality. And everybody is RIGHT to do what is "good" in their own eyes. So, where exist immorality?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.87  author  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @7.2.85    3 months ago

The idea of owning human beings was of course commonplace in biblical times (and before and beyond).   I suspect few gave it a second thought.   And that is why it is no surprise that the Bible oft discusses slavery yet does not deem it immoral.  The Bible was written by ancient men whose mores and values leak out of their attempts to play God.    So if one reads the Bible as the words of ancient men, it all makes perfect sense.   However, if one attempts to read the Bible as divine (especially the parts where God is 'speaking') one faces inexplicable problems (flaws, contradictions, omissions).

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.88  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.86    3 months ago
That advances the discussion.

I do not know how since nobody has suggested otherwise - at least I have not seen anyone suggest otherwise.

The fact is, there are positives and negatives to be considered to every issue of life on this planet.

Owning another human being as property is immoral.  

God can intervene and take over, thus all harm to anyone we would like to think would end. I, along with many others, would be pleased to see that day! On the other-hand, the "cosmic" plan of God seems to be so much larger than holding our hands, and firmly steering us, out of the ditches of our earthly existences. 

God (as in 'God of the Bible') intervenes quite frequently in biblical times.   So this notion of God being hands off is demonstrably false.   Thus on the big matters - such as slavery - God's silence on the immorality of slavery suggests strongly that the Bible is not actually the word of the grandest possible entity.

If we say that God is immoral ...

The God of the Bible certainly comes off as immoral (among other things).  But, this character is not really 'God'.   It is a bunch of ancient men pretending to be the grandest possible entity.   God (extra-biblical) (grandest possible entity) might indeed be perfectly moral.   The Bible really paints God in a bad light - that is why it is a wonder it has lasted this long without another council of Nicaea rewrite.

... and the people of ancient Israel are immoral, ...

They were, but to them it was normal.   To us, with a broader and deeper perspective, their immorality is obvious.   Future generations will no doubt look back on us and find many of the practices that what we consider to be normal as immoral.

... and slavery was pervasive in the ancient world  ...

As it was.

... then, where is an objective standard? 

Good question.   The arbiter of objective morality can only be the grandest possible entity.   If said entity does not exist then there is no objective morality.   The ancient men who wrote the Bible, however, are without a doubt NOT the source of objective morality and indeed are in many cases truly horrible guides on morality.  The the 'God of the Bible' - the character they fashioned out of their imaginations - is simply a reflection of ancient mores.

Morality, by definition, in these circumstances, becomes relative morality.

Yes!

And everybody is RIGHT to do what is "good" in their own eyes. So, where exist immorality?

Immorality, without an arbiter of objective morality, is relative.   Given nobody can deliver the authoritative moral code from said arbiter we have no effective objective morality.   When a human being deems something immoral it is necessarily based on relative morality.

Thus when we deem owning of another person as property to be immoral, that is our relative morality.   That is the best we have.    But it does serve us well and we can use it to look back on the Bible (and other self-designated 'divine' works) and recognize ancient relative morality ostensibly coming from the arbiter of objective morality.   That alone should cause anyone who considers the Bible to be divine to at least have a 'now wait just a minute' moment.

To wit ... God not condemning the owning of a human being as immoral reveals God providing moral lessons (that somehow have survived to modern times) that are indistinguishable from the vulgar relative morality of ancient men.    Makes sense if 'God of the Bible' is nothing more than a character imagined by ancient men.

 
 
Skrekk
7.2.89  Skrekk  replied to  mocowgirl @7.2.85    3 months ago
When it comes to Jewish weddings, the tension between tradition and change goes much further than just the question of same-sex relations. In modern terms, the legal principle that underpins Jewish marriage is highly politically incorrect. But does this mean we should change it? There is no question about the sanctity of a Jewish marriage. We call the betrothal kiddushin, meaning "sanctification". But what we are sanctifying is a man's acquisition of a woman. When the groom places a ring on the bride's finger and declares "Behold you are betrothed to me… according to the law of Moses and Israel", this is a formal acquisition. She is now, in legal terms, under his control.

Not to stray too far from the topic but that was also true of most Christian sects and most western governments until very recently.    In fact the RCC and other conservative sects like the Mormons fought hard against the demise of coverture laws and marital rape exemptions.    Women like you are meant to be the property of guys like me....."god" ordains it so don't question it.

I think that's partly why conservative sects were so vehemently opposed to mixed-race marriage and same-sex marriage because they violate the Christian extremist principles of white supremacy, male supremacy, and "proper" gender hierarchy.

 
 
Skrekk
7.2.90  Skrekk  replied to  CB @7.2.75    3 months ago
one day your spirit can just open up and things which did not interest or confuse you now began to come into a new focus. "Spiritual awakening, it's called."

If that awakening includes making excuses for slavery then I'd much rather keep my "spirit" asleep.

 
 
CB
7.2.91  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.88    3 months ago
God (as in 'God of the Bible') intervenes quite frequently in biblical times.   So this notion of God being hands off is demonstrably false.   Thus on the big matters - such as slavery - God's silence on the immorality of slavery suggests strongly that the Bible is not actually the word of the grandest possible entity.

God should solve all our earthly dilemmas for us? In that case: What would God need us to evolve to do? You have not proven God's treatment of slavery is immoral. Do not jump to conclusion! Also, as an affirmed non-believer in God ("TiG does not believe God exists. . . ."  "Yup.") You hardly qualify to speak on the issue of spirituality and God. It is clear to me, you have no real knowledge of these subjects!

This "the grandest possible entity, all lower case" is a ploy, a cheap talking point.

And since you clearly believe there no god exist, then all morality is relative. In that case, as long as ancient Israel obeys its own moral standards of decency no immoral act is incurred.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.92  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.91    3 months ago
God should solve all our earthly dilemmas for us?

Why do you ask that question?   Condemning slavery as immoral is not even close to 'solving all our earthly dilemmas'.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.93  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.91    3 months ago
You have not proven God's treatment of slavery is immoral.

I suspect most people on the planet (ergo virtually all relative morality - all that we have) nowadays consider slavery to be immoral and would expect that the arbiter of object morality would also consider it immoral.

  1. Slavery is immoral
  2. God (of the Bible) never condemns slavery as immoral

Do you disagree with 1.  2.  or both?

You hardly qualify to speak on the issue of spirituality and God. It is clear to me, you have no real knowledge of these subjects!

Try to not get personal all the time.   Also, we are 'discussing' (lol) morality, not spirituality.    At least, that is the topic.

This "the grandest possible entity, all lower case" is a ploy, a cheap talking point.

 Face Palm  Another incoherent allegation.

And since you clearly believe there no god exist, then all morality is relative. 

More like, if there is no grandest possible entity then objective morality is impossible.   

In that case, as long as ancient Israel obeys its own moral standards of decency no immoral act is incurred.

The subject is not the immorality of the ancients.   It is the fact that the arbiter of objective morality (God - as depicted in the Bible) did not condemn slavery.


You sure have generated a lot of tangent topics (and some very strange declarations) while trying to avoid the topic at hand.

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.94  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.91    3 months ago

It is poor form to tell your debate partners that they shouldn't discuss something they don't believe in.  It comes across as trying to shut down debate when you know you can't support your point.

The words on the pages are the same whether you believe in them or not, cal.  Slavery is condoned in the Bible.  Believing the Bible is true won't negate that.

If you believe that slavery is immoral, that sex slavery is immoral, and that genocide is immoral, then you have to reconcile yourself to the knowledge that the Bible endorsed immoral behaviors.  And I'm sure that's an extremely uncomfortable position to occupy, but there you have it.

 
 
CB
7.2.95  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.92    3 months ago
Why do you ask that question? 

ANSWER: God does not see slavery in ancient Israel as you do. You are stuck on some anachronistic amalgamation of slavery in Ancient Israel, slavery in Egypt, and 16th century slavery as close as I can understand it. God condemned slavery in the manner done by those nation's surrounding Ancient Israel, specifically Egypt, "Remember you were a slave in Egypt. . . ."   Thus, it is immoral only to people who seek to disapprove of God altogether. (As if it can change anything, really.) If God is God>>whatever God does is justified.

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.96  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.95    3 months ago

Slavery in any version is immoral.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.97  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.95    3 months ago
God does not see slavery in ancient Israel as you do.

Speaking for God Cal?   Regardless, this is not how I see slavery, it is about how the Bible portrays its God character (and thus the question of biblical divinity).   Here is the topic clarified by the article quote:

In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral.

Here is the example scripture (one of many) which show God weighing in on slavery:

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.

I appreciate why you are resorting to every possible tactic when dealing with this extremely awkward illustration.  But the uglier your tactics get the more you tacitly admit that the God of the Bible fails to condemn as immoral a practice that is in and of itself immoral - the owning of a fellow human being as property.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.99  author  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.96    3 months ago

Who would disagree with that?

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.100  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.99    3 months ago

Well...

 
 
CB
7.2.101  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.97    3 months ago

You're kidding.

 
 
CB
7.2.102  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.93    3 months ago
I suspect most people on the planet (ergo virtually all relative morality - all that we have) nowadays consider slavery to be immoral and would expect that the arbiter of object morality would also consider it immoral.

Another success! You accept "relative morality - all that we have " so please stop it with the "grandest possible entity (all lowercase)" nonsense. Your appeal above is to popularity. And, God does not "do" popular for popularity sake. Or else, we would SEE God face-to-face.

Using your own standard of relative morality, if the law of the land is not broken, that is, rules and regulations are followed, there is no moral violation. One has to break the established moral code, system of rights and wrongs to be guilty of immorality. Do you intend to overlook this too?

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.103  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.102    3 months ago

So, rape, genocide, and slavery are moral, so long as they're legal?  Or so long as whoever is pretending to talk to God says they are?

That's a bit of a scary mindset.

 
 
CB
7.2.104  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.88    3 months ago

You're spinning here. Relative morality, does not permit you to give the Jewish nation any other outside groups moral codes.

No more than France can overlay its moral code on the United States, or an Atheist can give a Believer his or her moral code. Ancient Israel's moral code is its own (between them and the Hebrew God) in every scenario you can dream up.

 
 
CB
7.2.105  CB  replied to  Skrekk @7.2.90    3 months ago

Rhetorical outburst noted. 

 
 
CB
7.2.106  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.93    3 months ago

Your repeat questions have answers threaded throughout the topic. See them again. It is not my fault that you choose to disregard what others state in these exchanges with you! It is your responsibility as it is mine to be honest to both sides of the discussion. You are simply not doing so!

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.107  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.104    3 months ago
Ancient Israel's moral code is its own (between them and the Hebrew God) in every scenario you can dream up.

And Nazi Germany's moral code was its own (between them and the Christian God) and boy did they dream up some bad stuff and label it moral.

 
 
CB
7.2.108  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.94    3 months ago
It is poor form to tell your debate partners that they shouldn't discuss something they don't believe in.  It comes across as trying to shut down debate when you know you can't support your point.

Our "debate" partner is not adhering to the whole counsel of what Rabbis and great thinkers closer to the 'situation' of the Bible and the whole counsel of comparing scripture with scripture. What is happening here is a pretext to condemn a people wholesale, in order to persuade somebody (somewhere) that if God can be immoral than the immoral God can not exist.

On a whole separate issue which bubbles up to the surface: Why go to church to read books based on an immoral god and immoral people? It makes no sense!

We see what is transpiring here. Funny, in a "odd moment of reality" this looks like the crafted show we are going to behold on September 4, when the republicans use the senate removal of the 60 vote majority rule to force another conservative justice on the highest court in the land. (The White House is using executive privilege to hide records on Cavanaugh.)

Back to the topic: Surely, we in here can be more MORAL than to trample on the truth when it is not what we wish to support.

 
 
CB
7.2.109  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.107    3 months ago

Nazis are about as Christian as, . . . not.  C'mon do you remember anything about first century Christians? Who did they go around massacring? Anybody can SAY for expediency sake any darn thing they want. Please know the differences!

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.110  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.108    3 months ago

Why in the world would you expect a nonbeliever to adhere to what believers decide about God?  To a nonbeliever, they're authorities on fairy tales.  There are no authorities on the likely nonexistent.

Nobody is trampling on any truth.  Some people are expecting others to accept as true that which they themselves believe, but cannot prove, is true.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.111  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.102    3 months ago
Another success! You accept "relative morality - all that we have "

Glad you agree.   Funny how you declare something I have stated as a 'success'.  

You accept "relative morality - all that we have " so please stop it with the "grandest possible entity (all lowercase)" nonsense.

You do not think there is a grandest possible entity?

 And, God does not "do" popular for popularity sake. 

You are speaking for the grandest possible entity again.

Using your own standard of relative morality, if the law of the land is not broken, that is, rules and regulations are followed, there is no moral violation. 

Repeating myself yet again ... the ancients had their own set of mores and values.   In their world, slavery was not immoral.    That is part of the point I have made.   The reason the Bible does not depict God condemning slavery as immoral is because God is just a character invented by ancient men who did not see slavery as immoral - they were wrong, but they did not know better.   Now if the Bible were divine one would expect the grandest possible entity to provide objective moral lessons such as:  do not own another person as property.

One has to break the established moral code, system of rights and wrongs to be guilty of immorality. Do you intend to overlook this too?

(see above)   Because the ancients did not consider slavery immoral, you are in effect arguing that slavery is moral - that the reason God did not condemn slavery as immoral is because He considers it moral.  I would again advise that you not argue that slavery is moral.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.112  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.104    3 months ago
You're spinning here. Relative morality, does not permit you to give the Jewish nation any other outside groups moral codes.

You write the above bizarre interpretation while ironically accusing me of spinning.   I do not think you are fooling anyone with this feigned obtuseness act.   

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.113  author  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.110    3 months ago

Adding to what you wrote.

Cal's 'logic' goes like this:

  • The writers of the Bible did not consider slavery to be immoral
  • Therefore slavery, at that time, was moral
  • That is why God did not condemn slavery as immoral

Basically God went along with the ancients on the issue of slavery.   God forbids (under penalty of death) the practice of screwing one's goat, but on slavery ... meh .... he offers rules for proper enslavement.

What Cal will never accept is the extremely obvious:

The reason God of the Bible never condemned slavery as immoral is because the people who created this God did not consider slavery immoral.   There was no arbiter of objective morality weighing in, so the Bible contains merely the relative morality of ancient men.

 
 
CB
7.2.114  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.112    3 months ago

Canned retorts do not advance anyone's understanding of the subject.

 
 
CB
7.2.115  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.40    3 months ago
First, you interjected evilbible.com into this discussion out of nowhere.  I was not aware that the site existed and I told you that.   Now you return accusing me of using their arguments - as if I am using them as a source.  That is not topical, it is a dishonest fabrication.   So, simple fix, just focus on the topic and do not make up 'facts'. —TiG.

It is you who first called this discussion a "debate"! Both sides have to be allowed to bring up points on the subject matter. Well consider this from that site:

 About EvilBible.com
EvilBible.com is a non-profit web site which was developed to promote atheism by revealing the wicked truth about the Bible and religion.

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/about/

And we are aware the site has a so-called, "instructive" section on slavery in the Bible.
Someone COULD easily be using this site as reference material here and using it verbatim without crediting it. Indeed, in your comment above 7.2.40 you replied in the affirmative by using the site information to buoy your own 'points.' Now, you want it to be off-topic? Be fair!
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.116  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.115    3 months ago

We have debated in this article for 6 days and up to this point I have not issued a single flag.   If your intent is to get flagged (sure seems that way) you will achieve your objective the next time you try to push your evilbible.com strawman on me.    Disagreement is fine, using blatant intellectual dishonesty to derail is not.

Focus on the topic:  " In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral."   

 
 
CB
7.2.117  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.116    3 months ago

Well, I certainly do not want to get flagged for fairly debating and using available and contextual web resources. So let me ask a different question, if it is okay, Sir.

Can I post information from [unmentionable] website and any other websites on slavery if I do not accidentally mention your personal handle? Double-checking.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.118  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.117    3 months ago

Yes include any sources you wish.   But they are your sources.  Don’t attribute your sources to others.

 
 
CB
8  CB    3 months ago
Given this is the best you can offer, does this not cause even a trace of doubt in your mind that maybe the Bible is not really the word of your true God?   As I have noted numerous times, if someone is going to contort themselves into pretzels to try to explain the inexplicable why not just put the Bible aside and explain God as you understand Him?   You (or Drakk) noted the need for the Holy Spirit to give you the proper interpretation anyway so why not just understand God through your direct Holy Spirit channel and hold the words of ancient men to simply be the words of ancient men?

The above is non-sequitur, projection and fabrication.  When you wish to have a serious indepth discussion about the Holy Spirit, let me know. Other than that. . . .

 
 
TᵢG
8.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8    3 months ago

That would be an example of simply making unsubstantiated (and nonsense) claims and then dropping the mic.   I suspect few will be tricked by that tactic.

 
 
CB
8.1.1  CB  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    3 months ago
When you wish to have a serious indepth discussion about the Holy Spirit, let me know. Other than that. . .

A serious discussion, I do not kid around with the Spirit. As a church-goer yourself, I am confident you can appreciate how I feel about this.

 
 
mocowgirl
9  mocowgirl    3 months ago

commenting to find easier later.  It is past time for me to be asleep.

 
 
sandy-2021492
10  sandy-2021492    3 months ago

I must say, I'm unpleasantly surprised by the defense of slavery we've encountered here.  150ish years after it was abolished in our nation, and the same excuses used then are used today.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10    3 months ago

I think it boils down to:

  • God is always right
  • If it appears as though God is wrong, then that is simply a human failing

The way to break that logical trap is to consider the possibility that God (the character defined by the Bible) is simply a fictional character of ancient men.

If the grandest possible entity (what all would call 'God') does exist one can only hope God is not like that described in the Bible (or Qur'an).   

Some people cannot deal with the possibility that the Bible is not divine.

 
 
CB
10.1.1  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    3 months ago

Tig, in this one article you have openly declared God non-existent and Ancient Israel immoral people despite any statements made to the contrary.

It is clear, you have 99.9 percent explained to anyone with a mind that God and your word-playing impotent: "the grandest possible entity (all lowercase)" are nothing of consequence. Logically one could ask if you have no experience with spirituality, no deep understanding of spiritual matters, not steeped in spiritual nuances, what qualifies you to impose yourself on the topic?

You explicitly say in your comments:

  1. We can't know anything about God.
  2. God does not exist.
  3. You, personally do not believe in God.

You repeatedly assert your point of view as one to teach others on the subject matter of the Bible? If position #1 is you can not know anything about God, how can you follow up with knowing critiques of the Bible? Using weak arguments from EvilBible.com.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.1    3 months ago

I am not the topic.

 
 
JBB
10.1.3  JBB  replied to  CB @10.1.1    3 months ago

It seems to me that despite the many biblical references to and instructions regarding slavery within ancient Israel that the moral of the story is plainly that slavery is wrong. Certainly the Israelites, who were held in bondage first in Egypt and then later in Babylon, believed that their own bondage was a bad bad thing. Throw in the many exhortations to treat others as we want to be treated which amplify the Bible's anti-slavery overall message. The enslavement of conquered peoples was pretty much expected all over the known world during Biblical times and ancient Canaanites were not a homogeneous people exclusively worshiping one god alone until at least their return for bondage in Babylon which was when exclusivity of worship became more the norm than the exception among those who identified as Jewish in Canaan. My only point is that a complete reading of the Bible always left me with the district belief that the moral of the story was definitively anti-slavery though plainly this is just my personal opine. The Bible is pretty cryptic and anyone with much knowledge of it can find many examples of contradictory messages. Slavery being just one example. Is the Bible pro-war? Not in my opine though there are plenty of justifications given for wars, mass killings and even pre-meditated murder in the Bible. Child abuse, divorce, mass child murders, patricide, matricide, genocide and every other sin imaginable are cataloged within the Abrahamic scriptures. That does not mean, at least to me, that the overall message of the old and new testaments endorses murder, war, slavery, genocide etc etc etc...

 
 
CB
10.1.4  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.2    3 months ago
If position #1 is you can not know anything about God, how can you follow up with knowing critiques of the Bible?

Let it go already. Your personal position is: "nobody really knows anything" about God or the grandest possible entity (lowercase).

On what basis do you continue to lecture others about God or the grandest possible entity (lowercase)?

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.4    3 months ago

This is not about me.   If you cannot figure out how to engage on the topic then it is best you leave this article.   

 
 
CB
10.1.6  CB  replied to  JBB @10.1.3    3 months ago

JBB, thank you for your balanced reply. Slavery has its positives and its negatives stemming back from before Jesus Christ. We, westerners' see slavery through the taint of our 16th century disregard for life and limb. That lens overlaying that past "clearly" shows slaves treated as sub-human chattel. To be fair, Egypt fearing the Jewish people burgeoning into Egyptian society turned them into national chattel for its own purposes. However God who purposely sent Israel into Egypt also brought them out after a time of experiencing maltreatment with a warning: "Remember you were a slave in Egypt' thus, do not do as Egypt did 'unto" you. God allowed "conditional" slavery in civil law of Israel. It was not spiritual law, which explains why Israel could write slavery out of its national consciousness over time.

Also, God regulated slavery in Israel as a form of control. Israel would soon realize that a 'regulated' system of slavery meant TAKING CARE of the people put into bondage and each household's charge. It would have an additional effect on how many wars Israel would wage, because the regulations on waging war allowed those nations a condition of surrender which would INCREASE the provision of slaves under Israel's charge. In other words, God gave incentives to Israel to realize what kind of master it would be.

Something which is left out of these types of discussions is the SPIRITUAL APPLICATION: 

  • God wanted Israel to realize what responsibility God took on in having a people, Israel, under spiritual bondage. To count the cost. Even as God did so by holding a stubborn people like Israel as a chosen people.

Hope it helps!

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.7  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.6    3 months ago
Slavery has its positives and its negatives stemming back from before Jesus Christ.

What is the positive side of a master owning another human being as property?    People could work for (as servants) others without being owned by them.    

How is it moral for one person to own another?

Answer:  it is never moral for a human being to own another.    

 
 
CB
10.1.8  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.5    3 months ago

I am not TALKING about you, I am talking about your positions on the article, God, Israel, and spirituality.  It is not right for you to criticize personally held beliefs of people of faith, and insist your personally held beliefs which you openly disclose are off-limits. Stop trying to unfairly silence your opposition.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.9  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.8    3 months ago

Focus on the topic.   This ...

calbab@10.1.4  On what basis do you continue to lecture others about God or the grandest possible entity (lowercase)?

... questions my right to express my position (worse, in my own article).   Figure out, quickly, what is topical and what is personal and go with topical.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.8    3 months ago
It is not right for you to criticize personally held beliefs of people of faith, and insist your personally held beliefs which you openly disclose are off-limits. 

I agree with your point but reject your allegation as yet another deflection.

So if you want to challenge what you think is a 'personally held belief' of mine then knock yourself out.   However, do so on-topic and based on facts and logic.  

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.11  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.1    3 months ago
If position #1 is you can not know anything about God, how can you follow up with knowing critiques of the Bible? Using weak arguments from EvilBible.com.

I will address this earlier comment to help make the point about topic and positions.

First, you interjected evilbible.com into this discussion out of nowhere.  I was not aware that the site existed and I told you that.   Now you return accusing me of using their arguments - as if I am using them as a source.  That is not topical; it is a dishonest fabrication.   So, simple fix, just focus on the topic and do not make up 'facts'.

Second, it is indeed my position that nobody could possibly know anything about the hypothetical grandest possible entity (GPE).  We do not even know if such an entity exists.   The best we have at this point is that it still seems possible that such an entity could exist.   

That established, the hypothetical GPE is one thing, the Bible is another.   The Bible is a book.   One can critique a book in many different ways based on facts and logic.   One set of facts is what is actually contained in the book.  Thus, one can critique the Bible endlessly sans any knowledge of the GPE.

The key here, is to step back from the Bible and ask - what if the Bible is not divine?    Then, with the presupposition of divinity removed, one can objectively analyze the content of the book.   

That is what I have done.   See?   No need to have any knowledge of the GPE, just knowledge of a book.


I suspect if one is able to view the Bible objectively without the presupposition of divinity, one would not try to argue that slavery is sometimes moral.

 
 
CB
10.1.12  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.7    3 months ago

You're wrong. The problem with slavery is abuse of the same. I am not romanticizing slavery in our times by any means. I will leave it at that. For I realize you are not going to agree at all for your own reasons.

 
 
CB
10.1.13  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.9    3 months ago

It is a fair question and you can choose to answer it or ignore it. What you can do is hide behind putting forward a 'talking point' of slavery in the ancient world as immoral, God who authorized slavery in Ancient Israel is immoral, and the Jewish people who instituted slavery are immoral. Therefore, God does not exist, because God can not be immoral.

Then cringe when asked on what basis you can discuss God when your OFFICIAL position stated above in this article is you hold nothing can be known about God!

Well, since that is your official position, I want to know what qualifies you write "position" articles about the God you expressly state you know nothing about!

 
 
CB
10.1.14  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.10    3 months ago

Your personal views have been posted throughout the thread. I have not forced them out of you. You shared them voluntarily.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.15  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.12    3 months ago
The problem with slavery is abuse of the same.

The problem with slavery is the owning of another human being.  That is immoral.  It does not matter if you treat your slave nicely, you still are owning another human being as property.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.16  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.13    3 months ago
I want to know what qualifies you write "position" articles about the God you expressly state you know nothing about!

Show me where I have written a position on the grandest possible entity.    You will never find me stating anything about the grandest possible entity other than the possibility that it exists and created us.   Indeed it is my point that none of us could possibly know anything about the grandest possible entity outside of speculation.

In contrast, I can write all sorts of things about the God character of the Bible.   The Bible has myriad stories that suggest the personality, morality, objectives, etc. of the God character.   And no amount of analysis of the God character in the Bible will bring one closer to an understanding of the grandest possible entity.   At best, one will get a better understanding of how ancient men with pens naively imagined the grandest possible entity.

 
 
CB
10.1.17  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.15    3 months ago

Well, that is just being argumentative. Or, a difference of opinions.  And no, I am not romanticizing slavery.

 
 
CB
10.1.18  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.16    3 months ago

"the grandest possible entity (all lowercase)"? It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.17    3 months ago
Well, that is just being argumentative. Or, a difference of opinions.  And no, I am not romanticizing slavery.

Did you not just write this?:

calbab @10.1.12 - The problem with slavery is abuse of the same.

The problem of slavery is not that slavery is abused.   The problem of slavery is that it is, by definition, the owning of another person as property.


Do you hold that slavery is moral if the slaves are treated well?    Or is slavery always immoral?

Feel free to clear this up, because I am confident others have read your 'arguments' as:  you think that slavery can be moral.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.20  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.18    3 months ago

Actually the grandest possible entity is not an opinion, it is (as I have noted) an hypothesis.   There either is or there is not a grandest possible entity (GPE).   (This is a tautology)

Some people think they know the GPE by accepting as truth the errant writings of ancient men portraying their view of the GPE (see the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, etc.).

In the case of the Bible, the God character -when dealing with a society based on slavery- never condemned the practice as immoral.    That might be a clue that the God character is nothing more than the result of ancient imaginations as they speculate on the GPE.

Of course some choose to blindly accept the Bible as truth and will even go so far as to declare that slavery is not in and of itself immoral.

 
 
CB
10.1.21  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.19    3 months ago

Nope. Go up and read the thread, please. We've both written our thoughts on the question throughout it.

 
 
CB
10.1.22  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.20    3 months ago

Noted. No further comment needed on this one. (Smile.)

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.23  Skrekk  replied to  CB @10.1.6    3 months ago
Slavery has its positives and its negatives stemming back from before Jesus Christ.

LOL.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.24  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.7    3 months ago
Answer:  it is never moral for a human being to own another. 

Now let's not take this to extremes.    It at least should be OK to own Canadians and Belgians.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.25  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.21    3 months ago

Okay, you are going to stick with the position that slavery can be moral.   

Note this as a prime example of what one must do to hold the Bible divine.

I did not think anyone would actually state that slavery is not -in and of itself- immoral.    Disappointment

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.26  author  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.24    3 months ago

Winking 2

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.27  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.25    3 months ago
I actually did not think anyone would actually state that slavery  is not -in and of itself- immoral.

That really was astonishing wasn't it?    It shows the sort of ethical and logical knots which superstition can cause a person to make.    And it shows the fundamental fallacy of appeals to authority.......slavery isn't good or bad because you wouldn't want to be treated that way, it's good or bad because a Trump or a Duterte or a Hitler or an all-powerful but imaginary creature says so.

 
 
CB
10.1.28  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.25    3 months ago
I did not think anyone would actually state that slavery is not -in and of itself- immoral.

Questions:

  1. Is the above your personal opinion, and are you speaking on your authority?
  2. Is the "grandest possible entity (all lowercase) your concept of God?
  3. Is the "grandest possible entity (all lowercase)" a moral entity?
    1. How do you know?
    2. If you can not know anything about "the grandest possible entity (all lowercase)" then you can not answer about its morality.
    3. Why bring "grandest possible entity (all lowercase)" into this discussion at all?
 
 
Skrekk
10.1.29  Skrekk  replied to  CB @10.1.28    3 months ago
Is the above your personal opinion, and are you speaking on your authority?

In reality all persons are speaking on their own authority, even the superstitious folks who blame their pro-slavery views on their imaginary friend.    It's exactly like the ones who say "I don't hate gays, it's my imaginary friend who hates gays."

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.30  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.28    3 months ago
Is the above your personal opinion, and are you speaking on your authority?

What specifically of 'the above' are you referencing?    It was indeed my personal opinion that no one (at least no one on this site) would literally claim that slavery is not immoral.   You have surprised me (in a very disappointing fashion).

Is the "grandest possible entity (all lowercase) your concept of God?

No, it is a consequence of very basic logic.   There is or there is not a grandest possible entity.    Simple.

Is the "grandest possible entity (all lowercase)" a moral entity?

How many times have I written that nobody really knows anything  about the grandest possible entity?   Face Palm   It is all speculation.

How do you know?

(see above)  (read it this time)

If you can not know anything about "the grandest possible entity (all lowercase)" then you can not answer about its morality.

Correct!!   Wish I knew what has so confused you to make this point as if you have discovered something.

Why bring "grandest possible entity (all lowercase)" into this discussion at all?

Because the word 'God' is used to refer to the God of the Bible.   The GPE refers to a concept that we can hypothesize exists but that is about all we can do.


You really should understand this concept now.   Right?

 
 
CB
10.1.31  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.30    3 months ago
You have surprised me (in a very disappointing fashion).

Awww. Please spare me, TiG.

I did not think anyone would actually state that slavery is not -in and of itself- immoral.

Question:

Is the above your personal opinion, and are you speaking on your authority?

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.32  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.31    3 months ago
Is the above your personal opinion, and are you speaking on your authority?

I just answered that question:

TiG@10.1.30  - It was indeed my personal opinion that no one (at least no one on this site) would literally claim that slavery is not immoral.   

Why do you ask (repeatedly even)?

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.33  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.31    3 months ago
Awww. Please spare me, TiG.

Does not matter anyway.   You have repeatedly argued that slavery -in and of itself- is not immoral.    There are plenty of ways one could have debated this topic without taking such a repugnant position.

 
 
CB
10.1.34  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.30    3 months ago
How many times have I written that nobody really knows anything  about the grandest possible entity?   It is all speculation. [from earlier in the thread] Second, it is indeed my position that nobody could possibly know anything about the hypothetical grandest possible entity (GPE).  We do not even know if such an entity exists.   The best we have at this point is that it still seems possible that such an entity could exist.   

There is nothing to speculate about.

Why do you not understand? It is your position (see Quote 2 above) that nobody can possibly know anything about the GPE (all lowercase).  In Quote 1 above, putting "really" in does not change the statement you can not address the subject of your tautology. Your GPE (all lowercase) is a "non-issue." And we should waste no more time entertaining TGPE (lowercase).

Therefore, I will not address the matter of GPE (lowercase) any longer with you or anyone else on this thread.

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.1.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @10.1.34    3 months ago
you can not address the subject

Nor can you.

When it comes to God, or GPE, or whatever you want to call it, it's all speculation.  You might not like reading that, but it is.  You don't know there's a god of any sort.  You think you know, and seem to think that thinking you know gives you some sort of authority to discuss what you think you know (but don't know) that's greater than those who know they don't know.

Follow?

Your speculation no more qualifies you to speak with authority on God, gods, goddesses, demigods, devils, demons, spirits, or any/all of the above than TiG's skepticism.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.36  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.34    3 months ago
There is nothing to speculate about.

That makes no sense.  You claim to know all there is to know about the grandest possible entity?   I thought your claim of slavery not being immoral in and of itself was bizarre.    Now you add this.

Why do you not understand? It is your position (see Quote 2 above) that nobody can possibly know anything about the GPE (all lowercase).  In Quote 1 above, putting "really" in does not change the statement you can not address the subject of your tautology. Your GPE (all lowercase) is a "non-issue." And we should waste no more time entertaining TGPE (lowercase).

Incoherent.   Not even going to try to parse through that mess.   There is nothing complicated about the notion of the grandest possible entity.   

Therefore, I will not address the matter of GPE (lowercase) any longer with you or anyone else on this thread.

Thumbs Up 2   And try a little harder to make a coherent point.

 
 
CB
10.1.37  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.36    3 months ago

Over and over again and again, you tell us (those who are willing to hold you accountable that is) we can know nothing about the GPE (lowercase) and still  Image result for image blah blah emoticon

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.38  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.37    3 months ago
Over and over again and again, you tell us (those who are willing to hold you accountable that is) we can know nothing about the GPE ...

Yes, unfortunately, I keep stating the same thing in response to you repeatedly asking the same question.   

Do you have a point or is this simply a drive-by?

 
 
CB
10.1.39  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.38    3 months ago

We are touching on all the points, and some. So far, so good!

 
 
TᵢG
11  author  TᵢG    3 months ago
It probably is best to not try to define the Bible as providing moral guidance.   That will get you into trouble very quickly.   But if the topic is Slavery in the Bible it is highly advised to not try to mount a biblical defense.   Not only does the Bible never show God condemning slavery as immoral but it actually shows God acknowledging and allowing the practice of one human being owning another.
 
 
Gordy327
12  Gordy327    3 months ago

Let's make it simple. Is slavery immoral? It's a yes/no question. If one says yes, then that means God is immoral as he doesn't condemn or prohibit slavery. If one says no, then that speaks a lot about one's own lack of morals and God's supposed morality, or lack thereof. No amount of rationalization will change that fact, or the idea that slavery itself is immoral.

 
 
TᵢG
12.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @12    3 months ago

Would you be surprised if someone answered that slavery is sometimes moral?

 
 
Gordy327
12.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @12.1    3 months ago
Would you be surprised if someone answered that slavery is sometimes moral?

Actually, no. But I would be more disappointed.

 
 
TᵢG
12.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @12.1.1    3 months ago

Queued up another verse @13.   Same posit, but just a different example (change of pace).

 
 
TᵢG
13  author  TᵢG    3 months ago

Leviticus 25:44-46

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.

Owning human beings as property is immoral.   The Bible never condemns slavery - just makes rules for proper enslavement.   This, by the way, is just another example of the notion that human beings as property is perfectly acceptable to the writers of the Bible.

This all makes perfectly good sense if the writers of the Bible were simply ancient men.   To them, owning a human being as property was normal.  They probably never considered that this ownership might be immoral.   Only a being more enlightened than these men would have been able to deem slavery immoral.   Neither Yahweh or Jesus ever deemed slavery immoral.   The moral insight of God, it would appear, was no more enlightened than that of ancient men.

If one concludes the Bible is divine, one must deem slavery -as portrayed in the Bible- to be moral or accept God to be immoral.   On the other hand, if one recognizes the Bible as a book written by men describing their views of God (whether believed or invented) then the lack of condemnation makes excellent sense.

 
 
Gordy327
13.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @13    3 months ago
Only a being more enlightened than these men would have been able to deem slavery immoral.   Neither Yahweh or Jesus ever deemed slavery immoral.   The moral insight of God, it would appear, was no more enlightened than that of ancient men.

It would seem many societies have morally evolved to agree that slavery is immoral. Therefore, humans have become morally superior to god.

If one concludes the Bible is divine, one must deem slavery -as portrayed in the Bible- to be moral or accept God to be immoral.

Exactly. There is no other way around that, no matter how much logic pretzeling one tries to do.

if one recognizes the Bible as a book written by men describing their views of God (whether believed or invented) then the lack of condemnation makes excellent sense.

Yes, and it also means the bible (and by extension god) can be fallible and at best, be taken with a grain of salt. 

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @13.1    3 months ago
Therefore, humans have become morally superior to god.

Where 'God' is defined as 'God of the Bible'.

There is no other way around that, no matter how much logic pretzeling one tries to do.

This article contains some mighty fine pretzeling comments.  Winking 2

Yes, and it also means the bible (and by extension god) can be fallible and at best, be taken with a grain of salt. 

The Bible is demonstrably errant and thus clearly not divine.   Trying to defend the Bible as divine is a hopeless task.   So much wiser to recognize it as the religious views of ancient men and find God (for those who take that path) using facts and logic.    Or even 'spiritually'.   Anything might be superior to blindly adopting the mores and values of ancient men as divine morality.

 
 
Gordy327
13.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.1    3 months ago
Where 'God' is defined as 'God of the Bible'.

part of that definition includes immorality apparently.

This article contains some mighty fine pretzeling comments.

Indeed it does. Such fine twisting too.

The Bible is demonstrably errant and thus clearly not divine. Trying to defend the Bible as divine is a hopeless task.

But there those who do try. And they don't even realize how badly they fail. You know when they're reached the point of failure when they declare something along the lines of we "don't have the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot understand."

So much wiser to recognize it as the religious views of ancient men and find God (for those who take that path) using facts and logic. Or even 'spiritually'.

Facts and logic is an anathema to religious delusions.

Anything might be superior to blindly adopting the mores and values of ancient men as divine morality.

It's amazing how some will blindly accept something deemed "divine," no questions asked. 

 
 
Skrekk
13.1.3  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.1    3 months ago
The Bible is demonstrably errant and thus clearly not divine. 

Nah, it just means that "god" is error-prone.

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @13.1.3    3 months ago
Nah, it just means that "god" is error-prone.

Omniscient, omnipotent yet imperfect.   Sounds like an interesting character for a story.

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @13.1.2    3 months ago
Such fine twisting too.

Check this out.   Sound familiar?

Matt is a great debater by the way.

 
 
CB
13.1.6  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.5    3 months ago

Yes it does sound familiar. It is nearly 99.9 percent how you have managed this discussion throughout. Matt 'throttles' the caller throughout that short call, curses him ("Bullshit") and then in a 'huff' orders him to not call until he capitulates to Matt's point. That's bullshit!

What is the discussion here anyway, TiG?

  1. Is it slavery in and of itself is wrong (immoral)?
  2. Is it slavery when it results in a beating is bad?
  3. Both?

Because these issues keep being floated loosely?

What these two irreligious persons (whom I have listened to before on issues) miss from all this grandstanding is the pretense that this is a civil law on the books. It does not mean that it happened, and it certainly does not mean that slave-owners in Israel walked away without punishment to themselves.

That is the picture these two irreligious individuals want people to imprint in the minds of listeners.

Now on a more personal note, I want to mention a disappointment I have after seeing this video and considering the over-arching treatment of dissenting voices from the Seeder's voice:

There must be fairness and perceived fairness in any two-way discussion. If after all the circumstances, and different approaches are looked into, nothing stated can add or subtract from the status quo viewpoint, WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE? According to irreligious folks, God (of All) could have just assented to slavery without proscribing regulations! The effect being the same—according to Atheists that is.

Thus, I submit these two atheists are creating and establishing a false alternative narrative. That since it is their broadcast time (their article), they control the means to cut off debate where they choose-like; and to 'pound the table' vociferously (and rather dogmatically); doing so with or without listening inwardly. That being the one-two "punch" of a call-in show.

Lastly:

Is there no distinction to be understood and accepted between civil treatment under the law for slaves,
and catastrophic control over the same? is all slavery, at all times, the same without shades of differences?

You want to know the answer to that question: Ask a slave!

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.7  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.6    3 months ago

I am not the topic.   

What is the discussion here anyway, TiG?

Note the article's characteristic quote: 

In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral.

Now read the opening paragraph of the article:

The God of the Bible (hereafter 'God') is oft cited as the arbiter of objective morality.   In other words human morality is a gift from God and God is the one who determines immorality. The immediate problem with this position is that the Bible then becomes the written record of this morality.   

Immediately you should see that this article challenges using the Bible to determine what is moral.  Indeed, the very next paragraph makes that crystal clear:

The Bible, for those who have studied it, clearly reflects a morality of ancient men.   What was considered moral in biblical times is often at odds with what most human beings consider moral today.   Worse, the Bible presents at best a confused moral code with plenty of vague notions and contradictions.   Using the Bible as the source for moral lessons is replete with challenges. 

This paragraph also specifically focuses in on a specific question to discuss the morality of the Bible:

At the pinnacle of the Bible's moral challenge is the subject of slavery and the topic question:   Does God Consider Slavery Immoral?

So you really should not be confused about the topic.   The topic question is 'Does God Consider Slavery Immoral'.   The posit is that the Bible is not good for moral guidance.   The evidence is that the Bible fails to condemn slavery in and of itself as immoral.

Because these issues keep being floated loosely?

Hardly.   The topic has remained the same.  Most of my time has been spent fighting deflection from the topic.   Note that your entire comment is almost entirely meta.   This is an example of deflection.  You accuse me of not giving you a chance to freely express your views.   My response is that is demonstrably false.   The evidence is the many comments in this article where you have tried all sorts of tactics to preserve the divinity of the Bible.   Your comments are all out there and visible.   None have been suppressed - they have been debated, not suppressed.   And you have gone waaaay off topic numerous times and not once were you flagged (at least by me).   

So unless you equate a rebuttal to you being 'cut off', your complaints are unjustified and basically just another deflection from the topic.


Thus, I submit these two atheists are creating and establishing a false alternative narrative. That since it is their broadcast time (their article), they control the means to cut off debate where they choose-like; and to 'pound the table' vociferously (and rather dogmatically); doing so with or without listening inwardly. That being the one-two "punch" of a call-in show.

Yes they can cut-off callers.  (Not possible in an article by the way.)  Call in and complain to them.   Obviously I did not post this video to discuss the protocol of the show.   I posted this video because of the content of the argument from the caller.   The caller's argument was emotional and intellectually dishonest.   He tried to make slavery look as though it really was not all that bad (and even got the facts wrong).   It was the 'slavery can sometimes be moral' nonsense which effectively argues that God did not condemn slavery because ... well ... slavery really was not all that immoral back then.   The caller tried all sorts of hand-waving and flat out disregarded the scripture accurately quoted back to him by Dillahunty.   Matt asked him straight out if it is moral to own another human being as property (in context of the quoted scripture) and the caller would not answer.     

The caller apparently cannot conceive of the possibility that the Bible might not be divine and thus a source of moral guidance.   No matter how much evidence is shown via the scripture, the caller equivocated and denied while accusing Dillahunty of not really understanding the Bible.    

Dillahunty raised several very clear challenges.   What did the caller do?   He ignored the challenges and simply declared that slavery really was not that bad back then.   A repugnant position to hold IMO.

 
 
CB
13.1.8  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.7    3 months ago
So you really should not be confused about the topic.   The topic question is 'Does God Consider Slavery Immoral'.   The posit is that the Bible is not good for moral guidance.   The evidence is that the Bible fails to condemn slavery in and of itself as immoral.

Look are you intending to answer my questions or lecture me? You post a video and a question derives from it—not your article standing alone. Since you need to teach, let me as 'student' again ask you from my 'desk' to help my 'meager' understanding:

What is the discussion here (in the video) anyway, TiG?

  1. Is it slavery in and of itself is wrong (immoral)?
  2. Is it slavery when it results in a beating is bad?
  3. Both?

Note: Your answer so shocked me that I have not finished really the entirety of your post, I will go back to that now. If you answered the above questions directly in the remainder, forgive this rush comment.

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.9  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.8    3 months ago

You quoted my answer and then turned around and asked your question again.  What am I supposed to do with that?

 
 
Gordy327
13.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  CB @13.1.6    3 months ago
Is there no distinction to be understood and accepted between civil treatment under the law for slaves, and catastrophic control over the same? is all slavery, at all times, the same without shades of differences?

The issue isn't really about the treatment of slaves. it's about the morality surrounding slavery itself. The treatment of slaves is an afterthought, but has no bearing on the concept of slavery itself. To attempt to defend or justify slavery as right or "moral" is deplorable. So the questions are simple: is slavery moral or immoral? Does God condemn slavery or deem it immoral? Or is slavery as depicted in the bible merely the thoughts and morality of the particular writers of the bible at the time and not reflective of god's stance on slavery?

What is the discussion here anyway, TiG?

It's in the headline.

What these two irreligious persons

What does being "irreligious" have to do with anything?

 
 
CB
13.1.11  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.7    3 months ago
 A repugnant position to hold IMO.

Right! That is your opinion. What is clear is you are not the recipient of any applied slavery regulated or unregulated. Moreover, relative to the civil liberties and rights we can insist on and civilly fight for ourselves in this country, there are many other countries which are entirely 'broken.' Modern society has not entirely resolved its own distinct occurrences of horrendous activities to do with slavery. Our version being wholly vulgar, obscene, in public and largely underground.

Thus, your feeling of "repugnance" is meta.

Ancient Israel did not consider the western world treatment of slaves and slave trading. It was impossible for them too.

 
 
CB
13.1.12  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @13.1.10    3 months ago

IMPASSE.

 
 
Gordy327
13.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  CB @13.1.11    3 months ago
What is clear is you are not the recipient of any applied slavery regulated or unregulated.

How is that relevant? Or is that an attempt to justify slavery, as long as it's non-abusive?

 
 
CB
13.1.14  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.9    3 months ago

Answer the questions asked directly, head-on?

 
 
Gordy327
13.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.5    3 months ago
Sound familiar?

Very familiar.

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.16  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.14    3 months ago
Answer the questions asked directly, head-on?

You want me to walk you through it in baby steps?   You just accused me of 'teaching'.   Well, okay, if you need me to spell it out in a different way:

Is it slavery in and of itself is wrong (immoral)?

That is part of it.   That supports the main point that the Bible should not be taken to be reflecting divine morality (objective morality).

Is it slavery when it results in a beating is bad?

No.   Slavery is immoral under all circumstances.   Slavery = owning another person as property.   Slavery is immoral in and of itself.


As I stated in my answer (and now will add more details to walk you through this in baby steps):

The article's characteristic quote illustrates that God (ostensibly the arbiter of objective morality) acknowledged slavery yet does not condemn it as immoral:

In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral.

The opening paragraph of the article elaborates on this and notes that the Bible is used to reflect God's moral position:

The God of the Bible (hereafter 'God') is oft cited as the arbiter of objective morality.   In other words human morality is a gift from God and God is the one who determines immorality. The immediate problem with this position is that the Bible then becomes the written record of this morality.   

The next paragraph posits that the Bible is not divine and that it is a mistake for people to use it as if this were divine morality:

The Bible, for those who have studied it, clearly reflects a morality of ancient men.   What was considered moral in biblical times is often at odds with what most human beings consider moral today.   Worse, the Bible presents at best a confused moral code with plenty of vague notions and contradictions.   Using the Bible as the source for moral lessons is replete with challenges. 

Now make a point or something rather than repeatedly demand answers to obvious questions because I am not going to spend my time explaining what is both obvious and well documented.

 
 
CB
13.1.17  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.16    3 months ago
No.   Slavery is immoral under all circumstances.   Slavery = owning another person as property.   Slavery is immoral in and of itself.

So what difference does it make in our discussion about a beating? Why are we going over that specific aspect at all?

 
 
CB
13.1.18  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.16    3 months ago
As I stated in my answer (and now will add more details to walk you through this in baby steps)

Your condescension of other commenters posts is repugnant and a distraction! It has no place in civil discussions.

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.18    3 months ago

You have written dozens of comments on this article for well over a week.   Now you come back and ask me to explain the topic.   So I did by showing you exactly where the topic is defined and even offer commentary.   Next you demand I give my response according to your format.   So I did.   Now you complain that I dare note that you asking me to engage in this ridiculous exercise is essentially walking you through it in baby steps.    At this point my response is 'too bad'.  

So what difference does it make in our discussion about a beating? Why are we going over that specific aspect at all?

Because that is one of the ways in which we can see that slavery is not some nice relationship - it emphasizes the master-slave owner-property relationship.   How is this not obvious?

 
 
CB
13.1.20  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.16    3 months ago
In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral.

First of all, you have already admitted you do not believe in God (of the Bible as you put it), so that makes your ability to judge God irrelevant.  Secondly, since God does exist in the hearts and minds of the believer, God can declare anything moral by destination, or by degrees.

Your opinion of the Creator is at the end of the day only valuable to you!

Last of all, your true position in this discussion, for you have been seen to write it in this discussion, is the "ancient men" used their own (im)morality and attributed it to God to install a system of slavery in Ancient Israel.

Since you have clearly stated above  and revealed :

  1. You do not believe God (of the Bible) exist,
  2. the Jewish people made God up for their own purposes,
  3. that the Ancient Jews were immoral people for owning slaves,
  4. that in you opinion the Ancient Jews can not declare themselves acting morally by establishing regulations and Judges to order their slave system,
  5. that you believe all morality is relative (and you stated so above),
  6. then, why not treat the Jewish people as establishing their own right codes of conduct for ownership of another person, and their own immoral behaviors for owning another person?
 
 
CB
13.1.21  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.19    3 months ago

I am responding to a recent video by an atheist call in show you posted, 13 hours ago - not a week or so ago. If you do not wish to answer questions taken from it - why post it for all to see? Have some patience with your own 'productions' at least!

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.22  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.20    3 months ago
First of all, you have already admitted you do not believe in God (of the Bible as you put it), so that makes your ability to judge God irrelevant. 

I cannot analyze a character in a story?   I reject your restriction.

Secondly, since God does exist in the hearts and minds of the believer, God can declare anything moral by destination, or by degrees.

An omnipotent entity can do whatever it pleases.   So, following you logic, God really does not need a Bible.   If God is going to guide His creatures through the Holy Spirit, etc. then a stagnant book reflecting ancient mores would serve to confuse, not instruct.   And, clearly, the Bible is interpreted so many different ways it clearly has done a wonderful job of confusing people.

Your opinion of the Creator is at the end of the day only valuable to you!

Pretty much true for everyone on the planet.  

Last of all, your true position in this discussion, for you have been seen to write it in this discussion, is the "ancient men" used their own (im)morality and attributed it to God to install a system of slavery in Ancient Israel.

I cannot believe you still do not understand the point of this article.   Where did this latest nonsense come from?   No. No. No.   This article does not posit that ancient men used the Bible as an excuse to effect slavery.    Face Palm

Since you have clearly stated above  and revealed :
  1. You do not believe God (of the Bible) exist,
  2. the Jewish people made God up for their own purposes,
  3. that the Ancient Jews were immoral people for owning slaves,
  4. that in you opinion the Ancient Jews can not declare themselves acting morally by establishing regulations and Judges to order their slave system,
  5. that you believe all morality is relative (and you stated so above),
  6. then, why not treat the Jewish people as establishing their own right codes of conduct for ownership of another person, and their own immoral behaviors for owning another person?

1 and 2 are correct.

On 3, the ancient people were immoral but they did not realize this.   I made this point clearly.   They lived their entire lives with slavery being commonplace.   It is no surprise that they did not condemn it.  (Remember me writing this?)    Now had the Bible condemned slavery that actually would be noteworthy.   But it did not so it reads just as one would expect from men at that time.

4 is flat out wrong.   Figure out why.

5  I stated that the only morality we have access to is necessarily relative.   If there is a grandest possible entity then this entity would be the source of objective morality.   The GPE might exist and said objective morality might exist.   We just do not know.   But the Bible clearly is NOT the source of objective morality.

6  This article is not arguing that the ancients had no right to establish their laws.   Not even close to the point.   

Why ask me to explain the discussion (over and over) and then come back with a summary that, for the most part, totally misses the point?

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.23  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.21    3 months ago

All part of the same context and precisely on track with the focus of this article.   That video illustrates (animates) and summarizes the topic and the discussion that has ensued in this article.   That is why I posted it.   My intention was (this should be obvious) NOT to change the subject.

 
 
CB
13.1.24  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.22    3 months ago
An omnipotent entity can do whatever it pleases. So, following you logic, God really does not need a Bible. If God is going to guide His creatures through the Holy Spirit, etc. then a stagnant book reflecting ancient mores would serve to confuse, not instruct. And, clearly, the Bible is interpreted so many different ways it clearly has done a wonderful job of confusing people..

Well, aren't you one to 'teach'? God did not even get through to you. That is—not yet!

Again, you can not 'instruct' anyone about God or any deity, because you have already confessed there is no God, Spirit, existing only an immoral people called: (Ancient) Israel.

Stop 'fudging' your own pronouncements on this board. Obviously, it "pleases" God to let some of us stumble around, feeling after the Spirit, if only with the prospect of one day in this life finding Spirit!

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.25  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.24    3 months ago

Yet again,  I am not the subject.

Comment on the topic and not on me or anyone else.

Disagree by making a counter argument, not by turning your attention to the individual.

 
 
CB
13.1.26  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.22    3 months ago
On 3, the ancient people were immoral but they did not realize this.   I made this point clearly.   They lived their entire lives with slavery being commonplace.   It is no surprise that they did not condemn it.  (Remember me writing this?)    Now had the Bible condemned slavery that actually would be noteworthy.   But it did not so it reads just as one would expect from men at that time.

Vague! Vague! Vague!

Here is what you attested:


7.2.81  TiG  replied to  calbab @7.2.77    5 days ago
[Calbab: ]"... are you prepared to state the Jewish people were immoral  for owning slaves?"

I certainly am.  Absolutely.  It is immoral to own another person as property.

 
 
 
CB
13.1.27  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.22    3 months ago

Duplicate message removal service provide by: Calbab

 
 
CB
13.1.28  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.22    3 months ago
4. that in you opinion the Ancient Jews can not declare themselves acting morally by establishing regulations and Judges to order their slave system —Calbab
"4 is flat out wrong.   Figure out why."  —TiG

Vague! Vague! Vague!

Here is what you attested:

10.1.15  TiG  replied to  calbab @10.1.12    3 days ago
[Calbab] The problem with slavery is abuse of the same.

The problem with slavery is the owning of another human being.  That is immoral.  It does not matter if you treat your slave nicely, you still are owning another human being as property.

 
Did you state this? Yes, you did write this three days ago! You meant it in answer then; are you reconsidering your answer now?
 
 
TᵢG
13.1.29  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.26    3 months ago
Vague! Vague! Vague!

The word 'vague' means unclear.   You want to try to explain how this ...

TiG:  ... the ancient people were immoral but they did not realize this.   I made this point clearly.   They lived their entire lives with slavery being commonplace.   It is no surprise that they did not condemn it.  (Remember me writing this?)    

... is vague?   What does it mean when someone states: 'the ancient people were immoral'?   And then explain how you think it does not match the quote you gave:

TiG:  Absolutely [for: 'are you prepared to state the Jewish people were immoral  for owning slaves?'].  It is immoral to own another person as property.

This is just bizarre.   You are 'catching me' being consistent.    Not sure what I am supposed to do with this other than note, well, yeah I have stated on numerous occasions that the ancient men were immoral for owning people as property.  

(yesterday)  The sky is blue.

(today)        The sky is blue.

Ahah!  Gotcha!

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.30  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.28    3 months ago
Did you state this? Yes, you did write this three days ago! You meant it in answer then; are you reconsidering your answer now?

Here I have no idea what you think you have found.  I think it is safe to deem this comment incoherent. 

TiG:  The problem with slavery is the owning of another human being.  That is immoral.  It does not matter if you treat your slave nicely, you still are owning another human being as property.

I certainly agree with the quote you offered (I requoted above).    The problem with slavery is indeed the ownership of another human being as property.   That practice is immoral in and of itself.   And anyone who does or has engaged in ownership of another human being as property is immoral.  IMO.

You claim that slavery is not always immoral.   So what point are you trying to make?   

 
 
CB
13.1.31  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.30    3 months ago

I am willing to let others decide on your statements in the order presented. Moving on. (Smile.)

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.32  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.31    3 months ago

LOL

Yeah, I am sure all sorts of people will be able to spot the difference between:

'X is Y' and 'X is Y'

What motivates you to present such obvious nonsense?   I would be embarrassed if I did this as a mistake yet here you are doing it intentionally - three times in a row.

Is it just to pollute my article with sidebar nonsense?

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.33  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.31    3 months ago
Moving on

A wise move at this point, although I am not sure you could put forth worse comments than what you have just penned.   With the exception, of course, of your posit that owning another person as property is not always immoral.

 
 
CB
13.1.34  CB  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.32    3 months ago

You embarrassed? We're just old friends having a 'porch' debate, Tig! peace 2

 
 
TᵢG
13.1.35  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.34    3 months ago
You embarrassed?

I wrote:  "I would be embarrassed if I did this as a mistake yet here you are doing it intentionally".    In basic terms that means I do not understand why you are not embarrassed.

a 'porch' debate

Posting incoherent comments is not debating.

 
 
Gordy327
14  Gordy327    3 months ago
IMPASSE.

Clearly the last refuge of someone who can't answer simple, yet relevant questions or challenges regarding the topic of discussion.

 
 
Trout Giggles
14.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @14    3 months ago

Or in my case I just don't want to read somebody's bullshit any longer

 
 
Gordy327
14.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @14.1    3 months ago
Or in my case I just don't want to read somebody's bullshit any longer

Fair enough. And we've certainly seen our fair share of BS.

 
 
A. Macarthur
14.2  A. Macarthur  replied to  Gordy327 @14    3 months ago

GENERIC MODERATION COMMENT

"IMPASSE" is a site-sanctioned declaration by which a member may invoke the end of dialogue between himself/herself and another member.

Please desist from denigrating members who invoke the policy. (A. Mac)

 
 
JBB
15  JBB    3 months ago

The United States of America fought a great civil war over the wrongness of slavery only one hundred fifty years ago and as we see herein there is still some disagreement about the moral imperative that "slavery is always bad". While slavery has been mostly made illegal worldwide in modern times it is hard for us to imagine how slavery and human bondage were viewed in the first century world. There was not the delineation between servants and slaves we recognize today. In many cases bondage was even voluntary as it was often seen as much preferable to be the servant/slave of a rich and powerful family that provided relative safety and security as compared with being a lone free person in a world ruled by the sword wherein differing factions battled for power. Of course slavery is a bad bad by our modern sensibilities but men's moral beliefs regarding slavery evolved over time. A world mostly devoid of human bondage was practically unimaginable during biblical times which explains why biblical proscriptions regarding slavery had more to do with the relationships between slaves and their masters than regarding the rightness or wrongness of slavery itself. Again, the big picture, the moral of the story, within the old testament is plainly that slavery was a bad bad thing, for the Jews anyway. For everyone else, well, that was up for debate much like we still debate the morality of birth control, abortion, foreign wars and the death penalty. Most of the world, BTW, thinks that our use of the death penalty is barbaric. Under our laws prisoners are basically slaves and the US incarcerates a disproportionate number of its citizens compared with other modern nations. Just a few things to think about...

 
 
TᵢG
15.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @15    3 months ago

The Bible depicts slavery as owning another person as property.

Is owning another person as property moral?

 
 
Gordy327
15.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @15.1    3 months ago
Is owning another person as property ever moral?

Funny how some cannot answer that simple question with a yes/no response. 

 
 
JBB
15.1.2  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @15.1    3 months ago
Is owning another person as property moral?

No, not by our modern sensibilities. Is war moral? Is birth control moral? Is the death penalty moral? If a person submitted to bondage, like bonded servants who to a large part settled the US, was that a moral choice? You are not arguing with me. Quit making this personal. Our modern beliefs evolved. Not long ago our nation fought a war over slavery's moral wrongness. The bible can be used to either excuse away of to condemn slavery but it was writ over 2,000 years ago...




 
 
Gordy327
15.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @15.1.2    3 months ago
The bible can be used to either excuse away of to condemn slavery but it was writ over 2,000 years ago...

The bible is often used to justify slavery. Fortunately, we have evolved enough to know slavery is immoral. But it is not considered as such nor condemned in the bible. So if one believes the bible to be divine, then one agree that slavery is not immoral and/or that god is ok with it.  But if one thinks the bible is not divine, then the "morality" of slavery is reflected by biblical writers only.

 
 
TᵢG
15.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @15.1.2    3 months ago
No, not by our modern sensibilities.

Thus the point of this article.   If people (today) are going to use the Bible for moral guidance (the word of God - the arbiter of objective morality) then we should be quite concerned that it is simply stating the mores and values of ancient men.

Is war moral? Is birth control moral? Is the death penalty moral?

The reason this article focuses on slavery is because the morality of owning another person as property is pretty clear - it is immoral.

Quit making this personal.

What??   My entire comment to you consisted of one comment and one question:

TiG @15.1  - The Bible depicts slavery as owning another person as property.   Is owning another person as property moral?

How on planet Earth could anyone consider the above to be personal?    

Our modern beliefs evolved. Not long ago our nation fought a war over slavery's moral wrongness. The bible can be used to either excuse away of to condemn slavery but it was writ over 2,000 years ago...

Yes, the Bible reflects the mores and values of ancient people.   To accept it as divine truth today is dangerous.   That is the point.   Some (many?) deem the Bible divine.  Thus we see people turning themselves inside out trying to defend the practice of owning another person as property.

 
 
CB
15.2  CB  replied to  JBB @15    3 months ago
Under our laws prisoners are basically slaves and the US incarcerates a disproportionate number of its citizens compared with other modern nations.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html

&

Eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-viii


So we see slavery is not abolished in our modern American society; slavery is REGULATED. Modern slavery is TEMPERED by the Eight Amendment, which the highest court in the land uses to control what state officials can do or order be done to prisoners under their control. Lift the ruling of the Supreme Court and turn control over to the states; it then falls to state-level discretion what happens to the man or woman in those individual systems.

 
 
TᵢG
15.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @15.2    3 months ago
So we see slavery is not abolished in our modern American society; slavery is REGULATED.

Slavery was not abolished?  Slavery is allowed today in the USA?   One person can legally own another as property??

And if this were true (which of course it is not) would you find that to be moral or immoral?   (You have answered 'immoral' in the past.  Just FYI.)

Assuming you know that slavery is NOT legal and that slavery IS immoral then what point are you trying to make?

 
 
CB
15.2.2  CB  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.1    3 months ago

I am confident you know how to interpret correctly the parts of a sentence. So please, be fair and do so now.  I will not be explaining the obvious meaning of the 13th and 8th amendments to an "explainer." Don't obfuscate, please.

 
 
TᵢG
15.2.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @15.2.2    3 months ago
I am confident you know how to interpret correctly the parts of a sentence. So please, be fair and do so now.  I will not be explaining the obvious meaning of the 13th and 8th amendments to an "explainer." Don't obfuscate, please.

Yes I can.   I was giving you a chance to qualify your comment rather than just take the words at face value because you wrote:

@15.2  - So we see slavery is not abolished in our modern American society; slavery is REGULATED.

Since you refuse to answer a direct question and choose to not even offer a qualification I will simply take your words at face value.   

My response is that you are totally confused about the US constitution or are willfully equivocating so as to distort the meaning of our Constitution to support your unsupportable stance that slavery is not always immoral.

Feel free to correct my understanding if the plain reading of your words is not what you actually meant to convey.

 
 
Gordy327
15.3  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @15    3 months ago
Under our laws prisoners are basically slaves and the US incarcerates a disproportionate number of its citizens compared with other modern nations.

You might be half right. Incarceration is not slavery. it is a punishment for a crime committed, to be determined in a court by a jury of one's peers. Even prisoners are afforded some basic human rights. Slavery itself implies ownership of another person, who is afforded no rights whatsoever. To equate incarceration with slavery is disingenuous.

Of course slavery is a bad bad by our modern sensibilities but men's moral beliefs regarding slavery evolved over time.

Then this begs the question: Is the bible and/or God the objective arbiter of what is considered moral? 

 
 
Gordy327
16  Gordy327    3 months ago
So what difference does it make in our discussion about a beating? Why are we going over that specific aspect at all?

What difference does beating make in the discussion about slavery or its moral implications? Does a beating or the lack of it somehow justify or excuse the idea of owning another human being as property?

Your condescension of other commenters posts is repugnant

As is your apparent justification for slavery and deflection from relevant questions/challenges!

 
 
CB
16.1  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @16    3 months ago

IMPASSE.

 
 
Gordy327
16.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  CB @16.1    3 months ago

Was my post in response to you? No! 

 
 
CB
17  CB    3 months ago

Reply to TiG @13.1.22 

5. that you believe all morality is relative (and you stated so above), —Calbab
5  I stated that the only morality we have access to is necessarily relative.   If there is a grandest possible entity then this entity would be the source of objective morality.   The GPE might exist and said objective morality might exist.   We just do not know.   But the Bible clearly is NOT the source of objective morality. —Tig

Vague! Vague! Vague!

Here is what you attested:

7.2.88  TiG  replied to  calbab @7.2.86    4 days ago

Immorality, without an arbiter of objective morality, is relative.   Given nobody can deliver the authoritative moral code from said arbiter
we have no effective objective morality.   When a human being deems something immoral it is necessarily based on relative morality.

Thus when we deem owning of another person as property to be immoral, that is our relative morality.   That is the best we have. 


Did you state this?

"Necessarily" do not change the meaning of your sentence! Yes, you did write this four days ago! You meant it in answer then; are you reconsidering your answer now?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17    3 months ago

And here again you offer my words and I completely agree with what I wrote.   Yet you behave as though you have discovered a flaw in my logic.

This is truly the strangest debate tactic I have seen.   Congratulations on being unique.   I have never seen someone quote comments that a debate opponent has said and continues to fully support and pretend as though this is a contradiction of some kind.

To be real clear if anyone is reading this,  Cal somehow thinks that the two TiG comments conflict with each other.    Thinking 2  

  • Calbab:    that you believe all morality is relative (and you stated so above), 
  • TiG:        I stated that the only morality we have access to is necessarily relative.   If there is a grandest possible entity then this entity would be the source of objective morality.   The GPE might exist and said objective morality might exist.   We just do not know.   But the Bible clearly is NOT the source of objective morality. 
  • TiG:       Immorality, without an arbiter of objective morality, is relative.   Given nobody can deliver the authoritative moral code from said arbiter we have no effective objective morality.   When a human being deems something immoral it is necessarily based on relative morality.   Thus when we deem owning of another person as property to be immoral, that is our relative morality.   That is the best we have.

(This is really strange.)

 
 
CB
17.1.1  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1    3 months ago

We will leave it up to others to decide. Admittedly, you are verbose. Saying "much" in a CYA manner, leaves much up to interpretation. Let the 'chips' fall where and as they may! (Smile.)

Here is one example of you talking all encompassing doublespeak:

From your article: But if the Bible were divine - the word of the grandest possible entity - the creator of everything - the arbiter of objective morality, then one would expect God would not make rules for slavery but would instead condemn it. After all, slavery is immoral. We all 'know' this to be true do we not?
  • In your article you appear to definitively acknowledge an entity as, "the creator of everything," but you admit you do and can not know anything at all about such an entity.
  • You state that the grandest possible entity is "arbiter of objective morality," actually you readily admit you do not and can not know anything about the GPE, right?
  • Did you start out the article interchanging, the grandest possible entity with God?

It appears you can be all over the map, sometimes!

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.1    3 months ago

How is this an example of anything Cal?   (Other than an incoherent argument.)   You offer quotes from me that all work perfectly together.   Yet to you this is 'all over the map' or 'doublespeak'.

Given you cannot explain what is wrong with my words it is obvious that this is some sort of grandstanding play.    Not very well thought out ... at all ... but certainly grandstanding.

 
 
CB
17.1.3  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.2    3 months ago

*Yawn. Moving on.


I want to take a new minute with that video and something I noted earlier today, but I chose to respond to your condescending attitude. And, you talk about not getting personal. Whew! It is a good thing I have "bumpers" when I am in the room with you! (Smile.)


@ 3.42 in "The Atheist Experience" video, the female host is talking about beating a slave nearly to death (again) and, . . . well, I want to take this occasion to point out the disingenuousness of the two people at the microphone.

I intend to point out their confirmation biases in action: When talking about the Bible legally authorizes the beating of a slave, the hosts trains her audience on thought-pictures like this:

  1. If the individual survives one or two days after the beating - punishment is called for - but should the slave die within a week from the time of the beating, no punishment is to take place.

Nevermind an obvious concern, like what did the slave do to qualify for a beating as punishment in the first place?

But here is the clincher: these hosts are obviously okay with stating that a slave who dies in a reasonable window of a time after being whipped to a point where a Judge can rule after viewing medical evidence it was highly probable a death resulting from this specific beating and as a consequence punishment of the owner is called for.

No, these atheists move to the next stage of their polemic to suggest that, "a slave who dies up to a week later" certainly must have died from the administered whipping. Why?

Nevermind, there are any number of causes and effects of death in the Ancient World as today. What if the slave died for other causes?  Natural causes?

But that does not play well with the frame of reference of these atheists who are llkely speaking to an atheist audience!

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.3    3 months ago
Yawn. Moving on.

Cya.   But you do not seem to be moving on.

And, you talk about not getting personal. 

Maybe you do not understand what is meant by getting personal.   It means making the other person the focus of discourse.   If someone writes something that seems incredibly dumb and the rebuttal hints condescension, that is not getting personal.  That is actually sending a subtle signal to not pretend to be obtuse.  However a rebuttal like:  'are you really that stupid?' would certainly be getting personal.   Getting personal would  also be something like questioning the right of a person to opine on a topic because of some personal attribute (e.g. not believing in the God of the Bible).


@ 3.42 in "The Atheist Experience" video,the female host is talking about beating a slave nearly to death (again) and, . . . well, I want to take this occasion to point out the disingenuousness of the two people at the microphone.

Yeah these people are well known to be dishonest.   They never speak based on empirical facts or logic - they just make shit up.   Not Impressed

I intend to point out their confirmation biases in action: When talking about the Bible legally authorizes the beating of a slave, the hosts trains her audience on thought-pictures like this:
If the individual survives one or two days after the beating - punishment is called for - but should the slave die within a week from the time of the beating, no punishment is to take place.

So are you claiming she misquoted from the Bible?   By adding a 'week' (at the end) she was being generous since the scripture is more restrictive.   And they used 'several days' throughout ... did you notice?   And the scripture says that if the slave survives then NO punishment is called for.  It is only if the slave dies within a few days of the beating is the master liable.   They accurately represented the Bible.  The problem is the Bible, not the hosts.

Nevermind an obvious concern, such as what did the slave do to qualify for a beating as punishment in the first place.

Good because that is not covered in the scripture so it is pure speculation.

But here is the clincher: these hosts are obviously okay with stating that a slave who did not die in a reasonable window of a beating to where A Judge can rule it was highly probable a death from the beating and as a consequence punish the owner; and release the slave.

What is the clincher?   What is the big reveal?   What you stated is not a 'clincher' so what on Earth are you talking about?? 

The hosts are quite willing to acknowledge what the Bible states without any distortion.    But they did not say anything about releasing the slave.   Are you not familiar with Exodus 21:20-21?:

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.

There is nothing in this verse that talks about releasing the slave, only the punishment of the master.   Slaves are released on specific conditions such as destroying the eye or knocking out teeth.   This is the exemplar verse for this article.   Hello?

No, these atheists move to the next stage of their polemic to suggest that "a slave dies up to a week later" surely died from the administered whipping. Why? There are lots of causes and effects of death in the Ancient World as it is today. What if the slave died for other causes? But that does not play well with the frame of reference of these atheists to a likely atheist audience!

Where on Earth did you get this?   The talked about a few days the entire call.   In the end Tracy Harris made reference to a slave surviving a week and the master not being punished.   That is exactly what the scripture allows and she was being generous (in your favor).   Your 'argument' makes zero sense.


Is owning another person as property moral or immoral?    Given you consider it moral (with qualifications) I suspect most everyone cannot relate with your way of thinking.   I certainly am surprised that you would go there.

 
 
CB
17.1.5  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.4    3 months ago
Yawn. Moving on.
Cya.   But you do not seem to be moving on.

Er' moving on as in transiting the discussion! How rude! (Smile.)

Maybe you do not understand what is meant by getting personal. 

Yeah, I misplaced my 'Tig decoder ring' a week ago! /sarc

 
 
CB
17.1.6  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.4    3 months ago
Good because that is not covered in the scripture so it is pure speculation.

And yet, your are oddly not interested in what a slave might do to get a 'beat-down' —does not pique your interest? How about it! Let's speculate just this once:

  1. The slave tried to kill or took the life of another slave.

Speculation, admittedly. But, helps to enlighten too.

 
 
CB
17.1.7  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.4    2 months ago
So are you claiming she misquoted from the Bible?   By adding a 'week' (at the end) she was being generous since the scripture is more restrictive.   And they used 'several days' throughout ... did you notice?   And the scripture says that if the slave survives then NO punishment is called for.  It is only if the slave dies within a few days of the beating is the master liable. 

I think you should listen again @ 3:42.

Here is my statement corrected. I had it right and changed it before the timer rand out. Maybe too much looking at this convoluted thread:

If the individual DIES one or two days after the beating - punishment is called for - but should the slave die within a week from the time of the beating, no punishment is to take place.

But here is the clincher: these hosts are obviously okay with stating that a slave who dies in a reasonable window of a time after being whipped to a point where a Judge can rule after viewing medical evidence it was highly probable a death resulting from this specific beating and as a consequence punishment of the owner is called for.

No, these atheists move to the next stage of their polemic to suggest that, "a slave who dies up to a week later" certainly must have died from the administered whipping. Why?

Because it suits their 'narrative' of blaming Ancient Israel as immoral people.

 
 
CB
17.1.8  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.4    2 months ago
But they did not say anything about releasing the slave.

Er, there are other parts of the OT that write about slavery in Ancient Israel. How could you miss that? Open up your 'talking point' peer out through it!

 
 
CB
17.1.9  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.4    2 months ago
 I certainly am surprised that you would go there.

You'll get over it. I will tell you what surprises me: That Jewish people and friends of Jewish people on this site, let you call label their ancestors as some immoral slave owners. This mildly surprises me.

Also, I am surprised at how confident you are that you can PRETEXT one verse out of a chapter in an Old Book of the Bible to bring down God and the Jewish people to sub-par level, somewhere around your feet! Calling God and the Jewish people both immoral. You have some. . . .  But, after-all, you just blow pass any other verses offered to you in explanation from the Bible on the subject of slavery>>with your "bullhorn" refrain:

Is owning another person as property moral or immoral? 

As if your question is the be off that end all. This is not a court of law. Commentary is what a comment board is all about. As if! Pffftt!

Good night!

 
 
sandy-2021492
17.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @17.1.6    2 months ago
And yet, your are oddly not interested in what a slave might do to get a 'beat-down' —does not pique your interest?

Yes, because no wife or child has ever suffered life-threatening abuse without doing something to deserve it, amirite?

You're victim-blaming to justify the near-murder of a person owned by another person.

I think it's appalling that anyone could think that getting beaten to within an inch of one's life is a moral consequence for anything.  It's even more appalling that you're defending one person's life being under the control of another person to the extent that violence that extreme is ever acceptable.

 
 
sandy-2021492
17.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @17.1.9    2 months ago
That Jewish people and friends of Jewish people on this site, let you call label their ancestors as some immoral slave owners.

Some of my white ancestors owned slaves.  They were immoral.  I have no problem saying it, nor do I have a problem with anybody else saying it, because it's true.  It's not a reflection on me personally.  I am well aware that me ancestors were not perfect.

 
 
CB
17.1.13  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.1.10    2 months ago

Sandy, be appalled then. Slavery happened. It was a reality. God allowed it. We are a better world with it being checked and limited overall. However, trying to bring down God, whom you could care less about anyway with it, simply is a non-starter! Non-believers, it is well-known, say a great many things, about the Bible, until some point in time. . . when a new spiritual outlook arrives.

 
 
CB
17.1.14  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.1.11    2 months ago

Western slavery can be proven to be immoral. Because it was cruel, nasty, filthy, and worse of all evil in the extreme. Moreover, it served no one's purposes, but the Master's. Though, I am sure, listen, that some slaves found 'light' through all the darkness surrounding them. In other words, there are good people appearing through every worse case scenario.

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.15  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.7    2 months ago
Because it suits their 'narrative' of blaming Ancient Israel as immoral people.

That is not the point they made.   

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.16  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.8    2 months ago
Er, there are other parts of the OT that write about slavery in Ancient Israel. How could you miss that? Open up your 'talking point' peer out through it!

Repeating:  

 TiG @17.1.4 - There is nothing in this verse that talks about releasing the slave, only the punishment of the master.   Slaves are released on specific conditions such as destroying the eye or knocking out teeth.   This is the exemplar verse for this article.   Hello?
 
 
TᵢG
17.1.17  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.13    2 months ago
Sandy, be appalled then. Slavery happened. It was a reality. God allowed it. 

The point of this article (and indeed the point of the video) is that the God character of the Bible never condemned slavery as immoral.   Therefore people who blindly follow the Bible as a source of objective morality -as if it were divine guidance- are foolishly following the ancient mores of the writers.   

 
 
CB
17.1.18  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.1.10    2 months ago
You're victim-blaming to justify the near-murder of a person owned by another person.

FYI, simply because a slave-owner and a slave is involved, the slave is not a victim by default. There is a Judge involved too! Be REASONABLE.

What did the slave do? Did this hypothetical slave deserve severe punishment? For example: Did the slave injure, harm, or kill one of the slave owners children? I have provided an imagined scenario, but one that is possible. What was the initial 'event' which caused the beating.

Reasons matter.

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.14    2 months ago
Western slavery can be proven to be immoral. Because it was cruel, nasty, filthy, and worse of all evil in the extreme. Moreover, it served no one's purposes, but the Master's. Though, I am sure, listen, that some slaves found 'light' through all the darkness surrounding them. In other words, there are good people appearing through every worse case scenario.

Slavery is not immoral because of the beatings.  It is immoral because of the ownership.   Owning another human being as property is immoral.

 
 
CB
17.1.20  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.19    2 months ago

Yeah, you and some others can not seem to settle on that point alone. So, at this point I'm just rolling with the talking points appearing on the screen! (Smile.)

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.21  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.19    2 months ago
It is immoral because of the ownership

So it's ONLY a Christian thing....since the title is about "THE Bible" that is ?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.22  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.21    2 months ago
So it's ONLY a Christian thing....since the title is about "THE Bible" that is ?

No, owning another human being is immoral regardless of the religions involved.    Ancient Hebrews were not Christians (as an example).

Do you hold that it is moral for a person to own another human being as property?

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.23  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.22    2 months ago
No, owning another human being is immoral regardless of the religions involved. 

Do an article on ALL religious "Ownings", then I might think you are serious about what you profess.. Other than that, based on your track record, I only see "Christian" bashing.

Maybe do one on Islamic Slavery, since that is STILL going on. Or is that a no-no in Disney Land.

After all...."WE" the people of the United States of America"....are just Citizens and NOT a Christian nation:

JUST DO THEM ALL TiG ! It's ONLY FAIR.....RIGHT !

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.24  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.23    2 months ago

You are free to write your own article.

In the meantime, read beyond the title and understand the point made in this article or move on.

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.25  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.24    2 months ago

I read it, and understood it !

"In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral."

Only in the Bible ?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.26  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.25    2 months ago

The focus has been on the Pentateuch (aka the Torah).   Are you not aware that the Pentateuch is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam?    The God of the Abrahamic religions does not condemn slavery.   

Feel better?

Now, do you hold that it is moral to own another person as property?

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.27  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.26    2 months ago

This Pentateuch ?
"The first five books of Jewish and Christian Scriptures"

Have a hard time finding the Islam part though.

Now, do you hold that it is moral to own another person as property?

We are all still slaves. We work and work to pay bills to keep our lives going.

Now those that still whip and kill "Slaves", hard to find that in this country ! Try the middle east.

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.28  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.27    2 months ago
Have a hard time finding the Islam part though.

Islam is based on the Old Testament.   Islam holds that the God of the OT is Allah.   Muslims believe the Qur'an is the new (and final) revelation from God but Islam is similar to Christianity in that both religions view the OT to be describing their God.

Have you never heard of the phrase 'the Abrahamic religions'?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.29  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.27    2 months ago
Now, do you hold that it is moral to own another person as property?
We are all still slaves. We work and work to pay bills to keep our lives going.

You are dodging the question.   Why?   

Is it moral to own another human being as property?

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.30  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.29    2 months ago
You are dodging the question.   Why?   

Because I still have "Slaves". Face Palm

Of course actual "Ownership" of someone physically (Whippings and all) is bad. Just don't see it here in this "Christian Nation".....do YOU ?

Seems your premise of "The Bible Says so", is a bit flawed. I guess folks just don't follow that mantra. 750,000 deaths has that effect. Thumbs Up 2

Now Ownership by monetary or Favor owed reasoning....is a different story. It's still a type of slavery ! YOU OWE SOMEONE.

Until your totally self sufficient, not relying on anything or anyone, Even you are a Slave TiG.

Now.....How 'bout those other religions that still actually physically own persons.Thinking 2

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.31  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.28    2 months ago
Muslims believe the Qur'an is the new (and final) revelation from God but Islam is similar to Christianity

Weird !

And they want Christians and Jews Dead.

Your take and their take don't mesh.

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.32  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.30    2 months ago
Of course actual "Ownership" of someone physically (Whippings and all) is bad.

Forget about the whippings.   Owning another person as property is immoral.  Not 'bad', immoral.   

I presume from your comment that you agree.

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.33  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.32    2 months ago
Forget about the whippings.   Owning another person as property is immoral.

I can't and won't forget about "The Whippings". Hookers get beat quite a bit by their "Owners".

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.34  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.31    2 months ago
Your take and their take don't mesh.

It is not 'my' take.   It is fact.   Look, I just gave you plenty of hints so look up the phrase 'Abrahamic religions' as a starter.   In the meantime, I addressed your concern so let's end this sidebar because it is beyond the scope of this article.

This article is not a comparative study of the Abrahamic religions but rather a critical analysis of the Bible as a divine source for objective morality.   This article posits that it is foolish (and dangerous) for anyone to use the Bible as the source for objective morality.   And the case in point is the fact that the God of the Bible never condemns the owning of another human being as immoral.

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.35  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.33    2 months ago

Irrelevant to the point.   Given you hold it immoral to own another person as property you would likely presume that this would be a rule of objective morality.  Right?

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.36  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.34    2 months ago
It is not 'my' take.   It is fact.

As YOU understand it. That's all.

"This article posits that it is foolish (and dangerous) for anyone to use the Bible as the source for objective morality."

It's all in the mind of the Beholder, how they think about what they read. Not EVERYONE thinks the same.

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.37  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.35    2 months ago
Irrelevant to the point.

Very Relevant. 

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.38  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.36    2 months ago
As YOU understand it. That's all.

As I said, go do your own research then.   If you think I am wrong then you have plenty of resources at your disposal.   This, however, is way off topic.

What is on topic is the question:  how can the Bible be considered the divine source of objective morality if the God of the Bible never condemns the owning of human beings as property?

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.39  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.38    2 months ago
If you think I am wrong then you have plenty of resources at your disposal. 

Did I say YOU were wrong ?

I just gave examples for you to contemplate.

Seems your the one doing the judging here.

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.40  author  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.39    2 months ago

Get on topic.

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.41  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.40    2 months ago
Get on topic.

Following YOUR lead.

What "IS" the topic, other than what the "TWO" of us have been discussing ?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
17.1.42  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @17.1.18    2 months ago
FYI, simply because a slave-owner and a slave is involved, the slave is not a victim by default.

I think it's fairly clear that anyone that is owned in perpetuity by another human is, in fact, the victim by default.

There is one easy way to see whether the Jewish people and/or their God who they claim divinely inspired the bible, viewed slavery as evil or criminal. It only takes an examination of the differences between what was allowed done to a Jewish slave versus a non-Jewish slave. To treat a Jewish slave the same as you treated a non-Jewish slave, to keep them in perpetuity, to beat them, to own any children they gave birth to, was a crime. It was punishable by death in some cases, as was the forcible taking of Jewish slaves. That means even at that time they recognized their treatment of non-Jewish slaves as something criminal if done to the supposed "chosen people". So it had nothing to do with the "time period" they were in, it had to do with imagined racial superiority and the dehumanization of other humans just because they don't look like them or worship like they do.

Any logical conclusion of this debate will recognize that slavery, no matter where or for what reason, is immoral. Now anyone can come along and claim their God is allowed to be immoral, is allowed to murder and maim as it sees fit because it created us so like any petulant child with their own clay creation they can smash it to bits if they wish. But you can't claim that from a human perspective, that destruction, that murder, that slavery, is moral just because a God you can't prove exists said so.

 
 
Gordy327
17.1.43  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.36    2 months ago
It's all in the mind of the Beholder, how they think about what they read. Not EVERYONE thinks the same.

When it comes to the bible, not everyone thinks, period. They prefer to let a book or someone else do the thinking for them.

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.44  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1.43    2 months ago
someone else do the thinking for them.

Interesting. And which "Ones" would that be ?

 
 
sandy-2021492
17.1.45  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @17.1.18    2 months ago
the slave is not a victim by default. There is a Judge involved too! Be REASONABLE.

The slave is owned by another person, and yes, therefore is a victim, by default.

The slave has been beaten.

If I'm beaten by a mugger, am I somehow not a victim if there's an actual judge involved in the case at some point?

As for your final exhortation, I am being entirely reasonable, thanks.  Slavery is appalling.  Defending it is appalling.  Yes, I'm aware that it happened.  How is that any less appalling?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.46  author  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.1.45    2 months ago
Slavery is appalling.  Defending it is appalling

For emphasis.  To me, defending slavery is also repugnant. 

 
 
Gordy327
17.1.47  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.44    2 months ago
Interesting. And which "Ones" would that be ?

Anyone but themselves. Why the emphasis on "ones?"

 
 
It Is ME
17.1.48  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1.47    2 months ago
Anyone but themselves. Why the emphasis on "ones?"

Oh.... I don't know...…...

Words like :

Anyone

Someone

Kinda gave me an inclining to ask that question.

 
 
Skrekk
17.1.49  Skrekk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @17.1.42    2 months ago
So it had nothing to do with the "time period" they were in, it had to do with imagined racial superiority and the dehumanization of other humans just because they don't look like them or worship like they do.

Well said.

 
 
CB
17.1.50  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.17    2 months ago

I have "news" for you and those who share your point of view. The people who follow God (not your "god character of the Bible" nonsense) are reasonable, and we do not own slaves. And when it comes to mores, ancient or modern, since you and those who share your point of view  think there is essentially only relative morality—we need not concern ourselves with what you think is foolish!

It'S AlL RelatiVe! aiN'T tHAT RigHt?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.51  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.50    2 months ago
The people who follow God (not your "god character of the Bible" nonsense) are reasonable, and we do not own slaves.

Yet again you rebut claims that nobody has made.   I think it is safe to say that everyone understands that virtually all those who follow the God of the Bible do not own slaves.   'The sky is blue' (and equivalent) adds nothing to the discussion.

not your "god character of the Bible" nonsense

The Bible is a book.   One of the characters in the book is God.    The 'god character' refers to God as described in the book.   Lighten up.

And when it comes to mores, ancient or modern, since you and those who share your point of view  think there is essentially only relative morality—we need not concern ourselves with what you think is foolish!

I suppose there might be some logic there ... somewhere.   Maybe someone else can spot it.

However, my question is this:   

Where does one go to find definitive objective morality?

 
 
CB
17.1.52  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @17.1.42    2 months ago
But you can't claim that from a human perspective, that destruction, that murder, that slavery, is moral just because a God you can't prove exists said so.

No one is asking you to believe or speak about a God you can't believe exist. You 'arrive' here voluntarily to offer your point of view like everybody else. As for the human perspective, what I claim is you have to know why the slave might be beat in the first place. There are no default states for being beat! For example:

  1. No one gets up in the morning and on each day's "agenda" is a beating.
  2. No one gets punished (beat) for doing what is legally required of them.
  3. No one gets a beating for otherwise doing good.

So what could or would have to happen to get to the point for such a severe punishment to be reasonable punishment?

It strikes me, you will not allow for any reason to be sufficient enough to punish another person in one's household (a slave). And, THAT is 'inadequate.'

 
 
sandy-2021492
17.1.53  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @17.1.52    2 months ago
No one is asking you to believe or speak about a God you can't believe exist.

So?  You also arrived at this conversation voluntarily, cal.  If you know you won't like what TiG posts, perhaps it's best you stay away from his articles.  It's not your place to tell him what he can and can't discuss.

The reason for the beating doesn't matter.  What matters is that one person is the property of another, and is therefore available to the owner to be beaten (or raped, BTW, which is what happened to those well-treated female slaves).  Humans owning other humans and having the legal right to do what they like to them is immoral.  Even if they treat them nicely, it's immoral.  A gilded cage is still a cage.

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.54  author  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.1.53    2 months ago
What matters is that one person is the property of another, ...
Even if they treat them nicely, it's immoral.  A gilded cage is still a cage.

Emphasizing again a critical point that Cal inexplicably refuses to acknowledge.

 
 
Gordy327
17.1.55  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @17.1.48    2 months ago
Kinda gave me an inclining to ask that question.

An odd question, as my statement was clear.

 
 
CB
17.1.56  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.51    2 months ago

Christians find objective truth in the Bible. Warning! Please do not get 'triggered'! No more of that, please!!!

You are an admitted relativist, right?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.57  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.56    2 months ago
Christians find objective truth in the Bible.

How could you possibly conclude that a demonstrably errant ancient book yields objective truth?   

 
 
CB
17.1.58  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.1.45    2 months ago

I hate to throw 'cold water' on your example, but we are definitely NOT conversing about muggers and muggees. (Smile.)

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.59  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.56    2 months ago
You are an admitted relativist, right?

You quoted me stating that if there is a grandest possible entity then that entity would be the arbiter of objective morality.    Did you read what you quoted?

 
 
CB
17.1.60  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.51    2 months ago

[[Off topic] and [devolving into trolling. Address the article discussion or questions posed!]]

 
 
CB
17.1.61  CB  replied to  TᵢG @17.1.59    2 months ago
You are an admitted relativist, right?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.62  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @17.1.61    2 months ago

Cal, you have recently authored dozens of non-value comments - most of which are weak attempts to taunt.    And from what I can see this is just growing worse.   

The table is full of questions posed to you that you have ignored.   Attempting to honestly and seriously answer any of those questions would be a decent way to proceed.   Raising a related sub-topic is another.   But the tactics of drive-by pebble tossing, strawman arguments, feigned obtuseness, personal-meta, deflection and repeating questions that have been answered has gone on far too long.

I recommend you get serious about the topic (or somewhere near it).   

For example:

TiG @17.1.57 - How could you possibly conclude that a demonstrably errant ancient book yields objective truth?   

This could yield a sub-topic on the Bible as the source of objective truth (which is related to but different from the standing question regarding objective morality).

 
 
sandy-2021492
17.1.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @17.1.58    2 months ago

You seem to think the involvement of a judge makes one not a victim when one is beaten.

 
 
kpr37
18  kpr37    3 months ago

Now I know all of the great intellects online are far smarter, and better educated than Friedrich Nietzsche. But I will put him forth as a dissenting opinion nevertheless. He does have some standing as an atheist intellect in some circles.

Taken from Friedrich Nietzsche's, the Gay Science chapter named, "in what way we, too, are pious"

"Will to Truth" that might be a concealed Will to Death.  Thus the question "Why is there science” leads back to the moral problem: What in general is the purpose of morality, if life, nature, and history are "non-moral"?  There is no doubt that the conscientious man in the daring and extreme sense in which he is presupposed by the belief in science, affirms thereby a world other than that of life, nature, and history; and in so far as he affirms this "other world" - what?  Must he not just thereby deny its counterpart, this world, our world?  But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is always a metaphysical faith on which our faith in science rests - that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysians still take our fire from the flame lit by a faith a millennium old, the Christian faith, which was also the faith of Plato, that God is truth, that the truth is divine. 

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/THE_GAY_SCIENCE_FIFTH_BOOK_.aspx?S=344

Of course, Christianity was not around in Plato's time, so what god concept did he mean? 90% or more of the educated class of his day would have known of the Greek pagan concept of the Logos, And how this concept was co-opted by Christians.

According to Philo and the Middle Platonists, philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teachings of the 4th-century-bc Greek master philosopher Plato, the logos was both immanent in the world and at the same time the transcendent divine mind.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos

 
 
TᵢG
18.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  kpr37 @18    3 months ago
... that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysians still take our fire from the flame lit by a faith a millennium old, the Christian faith, which was also the faith of Plato, that God is truth, that the truth is divine. 

This continues with ...

But what if this should become more and more incredible, what if nothing any longer proves itself divine, unless it were error, blindness, the lie - what if God himself turns out to be our most persistent lie?  

I would argue that Nietzsche's God matches my descriptive phrase (in this article) of 'grandest possible entity' (one that cannot possibly be known) rather than the biblical God.   Nietzsche was passionately at odds with Christianity and clearly did not buy the notion that the Bible described 'God'.   IMO Nietzsche was an agnostic atheist who was highly critical of gnostics: either gnostic theists or gnostic atheists.   I agree with him.

But before we go off into what is truly an interesting subject matter (and person), would you explain how this relates to this article?   The posit of this article is that it is unwise to rely upon the Bible for objective moral guidance.   Case in point is the failure of the arbiter of objective morality (God as claimed by the Bible) to condemn as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property.

Would you phrase the point you are making pursuant to that posit?

 
 
kpr37
18.1.1  kpr37  replied to  TᵢG @18.1    3 months ago

Sorry, I will not force my comments into the very narrow window you want. I will ignore your articles from now on, I will not comment. I can see dissenting opinions are not wanted or encouraged.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  kpr37 @18.1.1    3 months ago

Okay kpr37 if my merely asking you to express your point within the context of the article is deemed to be discouraging dissenting opinions then certainly avoid all of my articles.   

I did assume that you meant to comment on this article.    

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
18.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.2    3 months ago

Kpr,

I think that Tig was looking for context and not to discourage you. I am sure you have a lot to add to the topic 

 
 
mocowgirl
18.1.4  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @18.1    2 months ago
This continues with ...

Some people don't want to know or acknowledge the rest of the story.  chicken

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @18.1.4    2 months ago

I have no idea what that was about.   I simply asked for a way to link this comment (which I was clearly willing to discuss) with the topic.   Go figure.

 
 
mocowgirl
18.1.6  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.5    2 months ago
I have no idea what that was about.

Maybe, he/she didn't either.

I have found it best to not quote the great philosophers because I don't know enough about them to have an understanding of their overall viewpoint of the worthiness or worthlessness of life as a human. 

I find it more worthwhile to just muddle through trying to understand the people/society that have shaped my viewpoints.  The people, who had the greatest impact on my  childhood and young adult life, probably never heard of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle.  They were somewhat acquainted with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but mostly only around Christmas or Easter.

 
 
Gordy327
19  Gordy327    2 months ago
Is owning another person as property moral or immoral? As if your question is the be off that end all.

It is a straightforward question with limited answer options. I'm not sure why some find it so hard to answer.

 
 
TᵢG
19.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @19    2 months ago

Well according to Cal slavery is not always immoral.   Sometimes, per Cal, it is moral to own another person as property.

This is the level of semantic contortion that is required if someone insists that the Bible is the divine word of a perfect God.    I remain amazed (among other things) that anyone would try to defend the notion that God NOT condemning slavery as immoral is a good moral lesson.

 
 
Gordy327
19.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @19.1    2 months ago
Well according to Cal slavery is not always immoral.   Sometimes, per Cal, it is moral to own another person as property.

I'm sure slave owners felt the same way too.

This is the level of semantic contortion that is required if someone insists that the Bible is the divine word of a perfect God.    I remain amazed (among other things) that anyone would try to defend the notion that God NOT condemning slavery as immoral is a good moral lesson.

I'm equally amazed that anyone would actually use the bible as a moral guide or claim they cannot or would not be moral without it and/or god.

 
 
TᵢG
20  author  TᵢG    2 months ago

Responding to: It Is ME @ 17.1.41  

What "IS" the topic,

Could this have been more obvious?:

TiG @17.1.38  - What is on topic is the question:  how can the Bible be considered the divine source of objective morality if the God of the Bible never condemns the owning of human beings as property?

Reading the article is also a great way to answer the question:  'what is the topic?'.

 
 
It Is ME
20.1  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @20    2 months ago

I answer what YOU give me. Are you being Off Topic ?

 
 
Gordy327
21  Gordy327    2 months ago
The people who follow God (not your "god character of the Bible" nonsense) are reasonable,

There is nothing reasonable about following a god one can't even prove that exists. And god is a character of the bible. unless one can actually prove there's a god.

and we do not own slaves.

But some do not seem to condemn the practice either.

And when it comes to mores, ancient or modern, since you and those who share your point of view think there is essentially only relative morality—we need not concern ourselves with what you think is foolish!

Is that supposed to be an excuse for the "morality" of slavery? You think the idea of slavery being immoral is foolish?

 
 
CB
22  CB    2 months ago

How come Gordy is moderating this article? He is 'threaded' throughout it. Curious.

 
 
Gordy327
22.2  Gordy327  replied to  CB @22    2 months ago
How come Gordy is moderating this article? He is 'threaded' throughout it. Curious.

Because it is sponsored through my group. As for the article, how about actually addressing it and TiG's points, which you repeatedly deflect from, as he alluded to in his post 17.1.62 above! Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time.

 
 
CB
22.2.1  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @22.2    2 months ago

Cheap atheism sucks! Take your thread and its partisan discussion and you know what you. . . .

 
 
Gordy327
22.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  CB @22.2.1    2 months ago

Spare us the juvenile retorts! If you don't like the article or discussion, you are free to go elsewhere and not bother posting here!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Greg Jones
321steve
Freefaller
JohnRussell+
Sunshine
pat wilson
Jerry Verlinger
devangelical
GaJenn78
JenSiNner


50 visitors