Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 71
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    You're contradicting yourself now. You first provided 1 Tim 1 as support against OP #2, arguing that the bible does state a moral opposition to owning people as property. Now you're admitting that the bible condones it.
    The phrase "no **** Sherlock" comes to mind.
    Contradiction being the necessary aspect of concession, of course my concession contradicts an earlier position.

    I see the bible making a distinction where you are not. As such, the bible does condone slavery as you have it defined it.
    That doesn't make your position morally superior, or your conclusion logical.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    I'm not simply defining ownership as immoral. Our secular moral system has identified that treating people as property is wrong, period. We have laws against it and organizations devoted to eradicating it.
    The problem we're discussing here is that the bible condones it. Anything else is a red herring.
    As there are different conditions under which slavery occurs, you are committing the equivocation fallacy in saying that the bible condones the kind of slavery that took place in our nation.
    Such that while the bible may condone owning people, it most certainly doesn't condone being evil towards slaves. Also the way America engaged in slavery is the kind of "man stealing" that was mentioned earlier. Which would bring my earlier position back into relevance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    So far both #1 & #2 stand - the bible condones and mandates owning people as property, and it lacks any moral opposition to owning people as property.
    Yes the bible lays out ways in which people can be owned.
    That doesn't make it immoral, and you need to establish a justification for your position that it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Questions:
    Is it moral to own a person as property?
    If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
    If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral)?
    I see this as burden shifting.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Please provide support for this and explain how you determined it to be immoral.
    Why? do you disagree that theft is immoral? Or do you disagree that Bankruptcy steals money rightfully owed to another person?

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, the concept of voluntary slave contracts has not been established as sound.
    As Murray Rothbard puts it in The Ethics of Liberty: "A man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced — for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else’s benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of “voluntary slavery” is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary."
    Actually this is incorrect, per your definition.
    First, it is not ownership of labor that is being sold per-say, it is the physical body. If you don't think that your body can be sold or handed over by contract, then please look to the military. They literally own your body for the extent of the contract. and apparently refusal to submit is justly punished.
    I don't see how voluntary slavery is different. Especially given the body mutilating nature of the military. And the example directly contradicts everything Murry said.
    So it is certainly the case that a person can sell himself and it can be legally enforced.

    But it is important to note that the legal enforce-ability is not relevant to the morality of a thing.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is at least a kind kind of slavery that is spoken to here, namely people that are stolen away into slavery, which is the common understanding.
    That it COULD be understood a different way, doesn't make it any less "clear". Though if you are appealing to your own self as the definer of "clear" then
    I am afraid i simply have no reason to accept it.
    It is this kind of slavery that I show to support that your #2 is not supported, because as long as it speaks against a kind of slavery, your statement is not true.

    As you generalize all slavery together without justification.


    well, fair enought that it has been defined, but it dosn't stand as a supprted premise, at you are simply defining ownership as immoral, and question begging.

    I point out one example, that of a consentual contract, as an example of "moral" ownership of another.
    at least if one holds that consent makes some actions moral, where it lacking.



    The bible teaches as a truth that the borrower is slave to the lender.



    I readily concide that the bible condones slavery (of some kinds).
    Your conclusion doesn't follow from that observation, again you have not established such slavery to be immoral.

    -----------------



    Yes bankruptsy is called "theft" and is actually immoral.
    as to voluntary slavery, there is nothing about a contract being voluntary that requires the abilty to quit at any time.
    As long as you go into the contract of your own will, then the terms are "voluntary" even if you can't opt out In fact, that
    is pretty much the point of contracts.

    as to a broader understanding of the borrower being slave to the lender, go look at a person who has not opted out of their debt
    who sends every cent of profit to some creditor their entire life.
    What is the difference from slavery as you understand it? To own a person is to own their labors, our modern social terms are just a lot nicer on the slave.

    Though I personally have some issues with bankruptcy, I don't think I have ever heard it called theft in a legal sense. What is your source for this definition?

    What contract exists that there is "no way to opt out"? Sure it could make your life harder/more complicated to back out of a contract, but this seems nothing like being "property". Perhaps that is our impasse. I see a slave as some one that can be purchased, sold, starved or treated well. Whatever your pleasure and your pleasure can change at any time. This concept is considerably stronger than "owning your labors". Every employer I have ever had "owned my labors", but only during working hrs. I don't see a slave enjoying personal time (unless it is at the pleasure of their owner).

  3. #23
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Um, Leviticus 25:44-46 specifically mandates involuntary life-time ownership of people, so I don't know where you get that from. Also, only male Hebrew slaves were to be set free (Exodus 21:2), all others were owned as property for life. There's even a nifty loophole allowing unmarried male Hebrews to be owned as property forever (Exodus 21:4-6). Female Hebrew slaves were owned as property for ever (Exodus 21:7).
    I would suggest you need to apply more rigorous hermeneutics to your readings. The Verses mentioned allow for lifetime ownership, they do not mandate it. Hence the term “May.” May means a conditional statement. In this case all of the following conditions must be met;

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    2) The owner has not injured the slave.
    3) The slave has not become disabled.
    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).
    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.
    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/25-46.htm

    So sure, in theory it could be lifetime service, if the slave did no work, was never injured, and no one redeemed him. But that isn’t the type of chattel slavery you are appealing to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futureboy
    Could you show where the bible says that a master owns the person's labour, rather than the person?
    Don’t try to shift the burden here. It is your claim, support it or retract it. Neither of your sections supports this claim. The first mandates punishment for killing a slave (and remember if the slave is injured during the beating they are offered recompense or freed), the second mandates the Israelites not kill women and children. Neither of these are really the moral problems you lay out. And neither refer to your claim of ownership of the person rather than labor.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Laws are intended to uphold and protect the values of a society. Those values are determined by that society's moral code. From link: every law springs from a system of values and beliefs, every law is an instance of legislating Morality.
    So laws imply the existence of a separate, earlier moral code, sure. But they aren’t that moral code, right? So what moral code are those laws drawing from? Where is this magical objective moral code you are appealing to?

    Without offering an objective moral code to compare your claims to, your conclusion in the OP doesn’t follow and would need to be retracted. So far, all you've offered is that it disagrees with some, current US law. But that doesn’t make it an unreliable moral code, anymore than people who were arguing against eugenics in the 1920s were unreliable morally because they disagreed with US law. Or that abolitionists (who were using the Bible btw) were morally unreliable because they disagreed with US law. You need to show that there exists an objective moral code to compare the Bible to, and that that code trumps the biblical code offered. Neither premise has been supported.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. Likes mican333 liked this post
  5. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Though I personally have some issues with bankruptcy, I don't think I have ever heard it called theft in a legal sense. What is your source for this definition?

    What contract exists that there is "no way to opt out"? Sure it could make your life harder/more complicated to back out of a contract, but this seems nothing like being "property". Perhaps that is our impasse. I see a slave as some one that can be purchased, sold, starved or treated well. Whatever your pleasure and your pleasure can change at any time. This concept is considerably stronger than "owning your labors". Every employer I have ever had "owned my labors", but only during working hrs. I don't see a slave enjoying personal time (unless it is at the pleasure of their owner).
    All fine points.
    First, the "owning labor" is a term used by me, in response to future boys quoted source (see post *8).
    Also, as long as the person is "owned" the duration and conditions are not relevant, because futureboy has excluded all outside considerations. If you are a slave for a week or a day or your life, treated well, poorly or even have laws governing treatmentm it doesn't matter. Even matters of "opting out" are not relevant as long as the person himself is owned. Again, all excluded by the broad definition of "owning a person".

    So, several instances in our own society come to mind where people are effectively owned.
    The first, where you are not allowed to "opt out" on pain of death. Is the military. In the heat of battle, if you unilaterally attempt to "opt out" your life is forfeit. You also have to do what they tell you in total submission of your own will, effectively giving up your rights for freedom and to freely choose. - IE you are owned.

    The second is children, in every sense of the world your children, are ... "your" children, and you own them. Their will is totally subservient to your own, and the law will back that up. There are limits on to what actions can be done, but as they are still owned, then they are "slaves" under the broad definition offered. We even have ways of transferring this ownership, via adoption.

    The third is debt, now this is a biblical understanding of the term, and as the bible is the one being attacked it is important to recognize that it makes distinctions. From this POV slavery is a part of our world. As the debtor is slave to the lender until the debt is repaid.

    For other conceivably "just" forms of slavery, see Mican's post #9.

    ---
    ON the last note, bankruptcy as theft.

    Steal defined : : " to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

    1) It is wrong(morally) to take money with the promise to repay, and to not do so.
    2) Bankruptcy is the legal means of preventing creditors from collecting what is rightfully owed them, and the embodyment of #1.
    3) 1&2 fulfill the definition of steal which is theft.
    4) Bankruptcy is thus Legalized theft.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;555002]All fine points.
    First, the "owning labor" is a term used by me, in response to future boys quoted source (see post *8).
    Also, as long as the person is "owned" the duration and conditions are not relevant, because futureboy has excluded all outside considerations. If you are a slave for a week or a day or your life, treated well, poorly or even have laws governing treatmentm it doesn't matter. Even matters of "opting out" are not relevant as long as the person himself is owned. Again, all excluded by the broad definition of "owning a person".


    Ok, I get it

    ---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;555002]All fine points.
    So, several instances in our own society come to mind where people are effectively owned.
    The first, where you are not allowed to "opt out" on pain of death. Is the military. In the heat of battle, if you unilaterally attempt to "opt out" your life is forfeit. You also have to do what they tell you in total submission of your own will, effectively giving up your rights for freedom and to freely choose. - IE you are owned.


    Ok, the military does support "ownership" (not a very uncommon example), but does this really make ownership in other circumstances more moral (is it even moral in the military?).

    ---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;555002]All fine points.
    The second is children, in every sense of the world your children, are ... "your" children, and you own them. Their will is totally subservient to your own, and the law will back that up. There are limits on to what actions can be done, but as they are still owned, then they are "slaves" under the broad definition offered. We even have ways of transferring this ownership, via adoption.

    I get your point here but respectfully disagree. Parental rights have been eroding for decades at an ever accelerating pace, with no sign of slowing. This point you make just isn't so.

  7. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or retract that nothing in history indicates that this was the case.
    I’ve looked, and have not been able to find anything. Seriously, I’m not denying the holocaust here. If there is an example in history of this, then produce it, and then maybe I’ll take your hypothetical more seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because short of someone showing that something like this could not have occurred, logic says that it could have occurred.
    Logic isn’t just some magic ingredient that you can throw in and make anything possible. You have to support that it is possible, since I’m not entirely convinced it is, mainly because you underestimate the logistics and work required for the kind of enslavement you’re talking about. If a conquering tribe has sufficient forces to be able to enslave their just-conquered enemy in order to keep them from attacking again, then they have sufficient forces to simply keep them from attacking again, if that is their goal, and do not need to enslave them in order to do that. Take any recent (last 100 years) military conflict. In situations where the winning side also takes the territory of the losing side, the forces they leave have to be sufficient to keep the occupieds from fighting again. To then also enslave the entire losing side would take a lot more manpower and resources. Again, in cases where the winners enslaved the losers, they didn’t do it because they wanted to protect themselves, they did it because they wanted slaves. And when you’re motivated to enslave your enemy, then you have no problem killing all their men in order to enslave their women, which is precisely what the bible commands in Deut 20.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I see no basis to accept your claim that this is the kind of conundrum that a society/tribe of the past would not get itself into. I think when a tribe captures enemies, they definitely have the conundrum of what to do with their captives. That just makes sense.
    I wasn’t talking about just any tribe of the past, I was talking about a tribe that is motivated to make rational considerations about the morality of their actions, since that’s the kind of tribe your hypothetical requires. But that’s not the kind of tribes we had in the past. When the ancient tribes captured their enemies, they knew exactly what they wanted to do - remember Deut 20.
    Do you actually think the tribe was like, “Hey-diddly-doo, there’s these neighbourinos over there - let’s go attack them!” and then after they conquered them, “Oh dang-nab-it, now what do we ding-dong-do? Let’s all stop raping and pillaging and brainstorm how we can get out of this conun-diddly-undrum in the most moral way possible for everyone involved!”
    No, it was, “Hey, there’s these guys over there - let’s go attack them and then we can plunder, rape, and enslave them!”
    If a tribe was actually motivated to stop and brainstorm how they can act in the most moral way possible for everyone involved, then they wouldn’t have even gotten to the “let’s go attack them” part.
    Bottom line: If a tribe is motivated to make moral considerations involving not just their tribe, then that would prevent them from getting into conundrum you describe. Therefore I find it hard to accept your hypothetical.

    Please answer these questions:
    Do you think it is moral to own a person as property?
    If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
    If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral)?


    =================================


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I see the bible making a distinction where you are not. As such, the bible does condone slavery as you have it defined it.
    Then OP #1 & #2 stand. Please confirm.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As there are different conditions under which slavery occurs, you are committing the equivocation fallacy in saying that the bible condones the kind of slavery that took place in our nation.
    I did not refer to any kind of slavery which took place anywhere. Read it again: treating people as property is wrong, period, and the bible condones it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Such that while the bible may condone owning people, it most certainly doesn't condone being evil towards slaves. Also the way America engaged in slavery is the kind of "man stealing" that was mentioned earlier. Which would bring my earlier position back into relevance.
    No. We’re talking about owning people as property, which the bible condones. It even states that you could beat your slave to death - is that not evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes the bible lays out ways in which people can be owned. That doesn't make it immoral, and you need to establish a justification for your position that it is.
    I already did: Our secular moral system has identified that treating people as property is wrong, period. We have laws against it and organizations devoted to eradicating it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I see this as burden shifting.
    How is asking you what you think/believe burden shifting? Please explain.
    I’m having a discussion with you, and need to know where you personally stand, not just how you try to rationalize some book. If you can’t personally answer these simple questions to me, then I see little point in continuing to engage in this discussion with you.
    Do you think it is moral to own a person as property?
    If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
    If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why? do you disagree that theft is immoral? Or do you disagree that Bankruptcy steals money rightfully owed to another person?
    I didn’t ask you to support that theft is immoral, I asked you to support that bankruptcy is theft. I also asked you to explain how you determined it to be immoral. You have failed to do either.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, it is not ownership of labor that is being sold per-say, it is the physical body.
    The person/labour issue is not relevant to the point, which you seem to have missed. It’s the ethical and legal aspects of a voluntary slavery contract. The point stands regardless of whether we’re talking about voluntarily entering into a contract to sell your labour permanently or selling yourself permanently. Please also note that ownership of the labour as well as the person are covered by Murray, since there is no real way to separate the two when it comes to true ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you don't think that your body can be sold or handed over by contract, then please look to the military. They literally own your body for the extent of the contract. and apparently refusal to submit is justly punished.
    I don't see how voluntary slavery is different. Especially given the body mutilating nature of the military. And the example directly contradicts everything Murry said.
    The military doesn’t own soldiers or their bodies, as the soldiers retain full bodily autonomy/integrity rights, and the military can’t simply do whatever they want to them. Murray’s point stands, since the contract is not permanent (Murray’s “permanent capital good”), and you can leave the military after joining if you change your mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So it is certainly the case that a person can sell himself and it can be legally enforced.
    No, it’s not. The person isn’t selling themselves, they’re entering into a contract of service and commitment. It is in no way ownership.

    ------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, several instances in our own society come to mind where people are effectively owned. The first, where you are not allowed to "opt out" on pain of death. Is the military. In the heat of battle, if you unilaterally attempt to "opt out" your life is forfeit. You also have to do what they tell you in total submission of your own will, effectively giving up your rights for freedom and to freely choose. - IE you are owned.
    See above. The military doesn’t own soldiers, not even “effectively”.

    Also, I challenge your use of “effectively”. Based on the definition (in a way that produces a desired result), you’ll need to support that the desired result of your ownership examples is actually the ownership of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The second is children, in every sense of the world your children, are ... "your" children, and you own them.
    Saying “your children” merely refers to the fact that your are the parent to them, and does not denote ownership of property.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Their will is totally subservient to your own, and the law will back that up.
    Again, this does not denote ownership, because the law doesn’t back up your children’s will being subservient to yours because you own them as property, but because you are legally responsible for them until they are adults. They can be taken away from you, but again, your property is not being taken away.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    but as they are still owned, then they are "slaves" under the broad definition offered.
    The definition is owning a person as property. Please support that children are property.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We even have ways of transferring this ownership, via adoption.
    This is transfer of responsibility to care for a human, not transfer of ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The third is debt, now this is a biblical understanding of the term, and as the bible is the one being attacked it is important to recognize that it makes distinctions. From this POV slavery is a part of our world. As the debtor is slave to the lender until the debt is repaid.
    You were giving examples of instances in our own society where people are owned. This is not an example of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    For other conceivably "just" forms of slavery, see Mican's post #9.
    Mican’s hypothetical has not been established as sound, and even he said in post #9 it’s not a good thing (not just).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) It is wrong (morally) to take money with the promise to repay, and to not do so.
    No, it is morally wrong to take money with the promise to repay while intending to not repay. This is precisely why we have bankruptcy laws, because there are cases where people take money and genuinely plan to repay but are not able to for whatever reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    4) Bankruptcy is thus Legalized theft.
    Your conclusion fails without support for premise 1.


    =================================


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would suggest you need to apply more rigorous hermeneutics to your readings. The Verses mentioned allow for lifetime ownership, they do not mandate it. Hence the term “May.” May means a conditional statement.
    First, to “allow” or give authority to do something is literally the definition of “mandate” (https://www.google.com/search?q=mandate).
    Second, “may” is a fairly recent interpretation/translation of what the bible actually says. Looking at older translations such as the KJV we have “shall” instead of “may”, and while “shall” and “may” differ only slightly in meaning, their difference is what is crucial here. So, it’s not that ownership may be permanent, it shall be permanent. Further, looking at the Greek we have έσονται, which means “will be”, and is used throughout the book as “will be” and a few times as “shall be”. (http://biblehub.com/greek/esontai_1510.htm)

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So sure, in theory it could be lifetime service, if the slave did no work, was never injured, and no one redeemed him. But that isn’t the type of chattel slavery you are appealing to.
    Please indicate where I appealed to any specific type of slavery. Again, we’re talking about owning people as property, which the bible condones and mandates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Don’t try to shift the burden here. It is your claim, support it or retract it.
    Let’s re-cap:
    OP: The bible condones owning people as property which is supported by Lev 25:44-46.
    You: [Owning people as property] is a concept not present in the Hebrew Bible … show where the Bible says that a master owns the person, rather than owns their labor.
    Me: Ex 21:20-21 and Deut 20:14. Where does it say the labour is owned as property?

    I supported my claim that the bible condones owning people as property. Owning labour did not come into the discussion until you brought it into it, therefore the bible condoning ownership of labour is your claim to support. Please do so or retract it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Neither of your sections supports this claim. The first mandates punishment for killing a slave (and remember if the slave is injured during the beating they are offered recompense or freed)
    Ex 21:21 clearly refers to the slave as the property, not the slave’s labour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    the second mandates the Israelites not kill women and children. Neither of these are really the moral problems you lay out. And neither refer to your claim of ownership of the person rather than labor.
    Deut 20:14 clearly refers to the people being taken as plunder, not their labour. Furthermore, please support your claim that Deut 20:14 says to "not kill women and children".

    In any case, here are some specific references to ownership of people, not labour:
    Lev 25:45 - “they shall be your possession”
    Lev 25:46 - “inherit them as a possession”

    So it has been supported that the bible says the person is owned. Please confirm.
    Now, can you please show where the bible says that a master owns the person's labour, rather than the person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So laws imply the existence of a separate, earlier moral code, sure. But they aren’t that moral code, right? So what moral code are those laws drawing from? Where is this magical objective moral code you are appealing to?
    I have supported the link between our society’s morals and our laws. Please support that an objective moral code is required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Without offering an objective moral code to compare your claims to, your conclusion in the OP doesn’t follow and would need to be retracted.
    Please support that an objective moral code is required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So far, all you've offered is that it disagrees with some, current US law.
    No, you asked where the moral judgement of it was coming from, and I gave the examples of the laws against it and organizations opposing it. You then claimed that moral codes and legal codes should not be conflated. Please support that moral and legal codes are not connected in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You need to show that there exists an objective moral code to compare the Bible to, and that that code trumps the biblical code offered. Neither premise has been supported.
    Please support or retract that an objective moral code is required.

    Also, please answer these questions:
    Do you think it is moral to own a person as property?
    If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
    If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral)?

  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I’ve looked, and have not been able to find anything. Seriously, I’m not denying the holocaust here. If there is an example in history of this, then produce it, and then maybe I’ll take your hypothetical more seriously.
    Saying that you have no evidence that something happened to support that it never happened is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You made the claim that it never happened and you will need to support it or it can not be repeated.

    So at this point the claim that this never happened fails for lack of support.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Logic isn’t just some magic ingredient that you can throw in and make anything possible. You have to support that it is possible
    Then I will do it with logic.

    PREMISE - unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible
    FACT - no one has shown that this particular situation could not possibly happen.
    THEREFORE - it's possible that this situation could have happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Mainly because you underestimate the logistics and work required for the kind of enslavement you’re talking about. If a conquering tribe has sufficient forces to be able to enslave their just-conquered enemy in order to keep them from attacking again, then they have sufficient forces to simply keep them from attacking again, if that is their goal, and do not need to enslave them in order to do that.
    But then when you take enemies in a battle but have not completely conquered a civilization (most wars are not won in the very first battle), if you let the captives go to rejoin the civilization, then they can attack you again.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Take any recent (last 100 years) military conflict. In situations where the winning side also takes the territory of the losing side, the forces they leave have to be sufficient to keep the occupieds from fighting again. To then also enslave the entire losing side would take a lot more manpower and resources.
    And if every single war and campaign were just like that, you'd have a point. But how about all of the other scenarios where captives are taken?

    And also since slaves are manpower, you don't need more manpower to keep slaves than you get from slaves.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, in cases where the winners enslaved the losers, they didn’t do it because they wanted to protect themselves, they did it because they wanted slaves.
    Support or retract this claim.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I wasn’t talking about just any tribe of the past, I was talking about a tribe that is motivated to make rational considerations about the morality of their actions, since that’s the kind of tribe your hypothetical requires. But that’s not the kind of tribes we had in the past. When the ancient tribes captured their enemies, they knew exactly what they wanted to do - remember Deut 20.
    Then you aren't talking about slavery in general but just one civilization's policies. I'm talking about slavery in general.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Do you actually think the tribe was like, “Hey-diddly-doo, there’s these neighbourinos over there - let’s go attack them!” and then after they conquered them, “Oh dang-nab-it, now what do we ding-dong-do? Let’s all stop raping and pillaging and brainstorm how we can get out of this conun-diddly-undrum in the most moral way possible for everyone involved!”
    No, it was, “Hey, there’s these guys over there - let’s go attack them and then we can plunder, rape, and enslave them!”
    If a tribe was actually motivated to stop and brainstorm how they can act in the most moral way possible for everyone involved, then they wouldn’t have even gotten to the “let’s go attack them” part.
    Bottom line: If a tribe is motivated to make moral considerations involving not just their tribe, then that would prevent them from getting into conundrum you describe. Therefore I find it hard to accept your hypothetical.
    But that's because you are only looking at one possible scenario. If every single conflict has just like the situation that you described, then you'd have a point. But then your scenario does not apply to every situation where slavery is an option and therefore it does not show that people in such a situation never had such a conundrum.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Please answer these questions:
    Do you think it is moral to own a person as property?
    Typically no, but if there was a situation where doing such a thing was the least immoral option averrable, then I would not consider it immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    f yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
    In the situation where I think it could be moral, I get that by weighing it against all of the alternatives.

    As an analogy, I think it's generally immoral to push over a little girl. But if something was about to hit her in the head with the kind of force that would severely injure or kill her, then pushing her down so she doesn't get hit is a more moral option than not pushing her down. So I don't hold that pushing down girls is a moral thing but situations can arise where it is moral.

  9. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Saying that you have no evidence that something happened to support that it never happened is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You made the claim that it never happened and you will need to support it or it can not be repeated.
    Your initial support or retract challenge was to show that your hypothetical does not apply to what we've seen in history, specifically that the enslavers' motivations were good. This is what is supported by no historical records showing that this happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    FACT - no one has shown that this particular situation could not possibly happen.
    Forceful enslavement requires more resources than simply protecting oneself. That's why we see in history, when the motivation is to protect oneself, they simply take them as prisoners. The bible, on the other hand, mandates that those able to fight are killed (which, incidentally, fits your scenario's protection motivation) but women and children are enslaved (enslavement motivation). Therefore, I don't accept your claim that this is possible, and the historical record supports that.
    Please support that any conquerors have ever enslaved their captive enemy out of a motivation to protect themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then when you take enemies in a battle but have not completely conquered a civilization (most wars are not won in the very first battle), if you let the captives go to rejoin the civilization, then they can attack you again.
    So then you protect yourself. As I stated earlier, if you have enough forces to enslave them, then you have enough to protect yourself from their attacks. Please support that any enslavement has ever happened because the conquerors were trying to protect themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if every single war and campaign were just like that, you'd have a point. But how about all of the other scenarios where captives are taken?
    Taking captives is one thing, but enslaving the entire surviving group is completely different.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And also since slaves are manpower, you don't need more manpower to keep slaves than you get from slaves.
    First, I was referring to manpower in the form of forces, since that's what is required to protect oneself or to forcefully enslave a group, the latter requiring significantly more. Second, it seems like you're saying that, by forcefully enslaving people, you can then use those slaves as the manpower required to enslave them? Please support that this has ever happened, as I find it hard to believe that forcefully enslaving people magically turns them into raw manpower which you can use in any way you wish without requiring further manpower to ensure that your magical new manpower keeps working.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or retract this claim.
    This is supported by the fact that simply protecting oneself is easier than forcefully enslaving an entire group of people. Case in point, when tribes were fulfilling the Going to War part of the bible, they killed all the men before they could enslave the women and children. Therefore, when the goal was to protect from further attacks, they just killed the potential attackers. Afterwards, they enslaved women and children, since that was their goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Then you aren't talking about slavery in general but just one civilization's policies. I'm talking about slavery in general.
    Let's re-cap:
    Me: Please support that the enslavers' motivations were to choose least-bad options.
    You: I'm not saying for a fact that they did but that this scenario may have occurred.
    Me: Really, are you sure? If it's a tribe that's motivated by moral considerations, it doesn't seem like the kind of tribe that could even get into that conundrum.
    You: I see no basis to accept that. When a society/tribe captures their enemies, they have the conundrum of deciding what to do.
    Me: Not just any society/tribe, the kind which is motivated by the moral considerations which your hypothetical requires.

    So we're still talking about owning people as property, and not one civilizations policies. The policies are required by your hypothetical.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But that's because you are only looking at one possible scenario. If every single conflict has just like the situation that you described, then you'd have a point.
    The example is merely illustrating the failure of your hypothetical. It is not specific in any way other than they adhere to your hypothetical (attack, conquer, then need to figure out what to do). Note that it doesn't even mention enslaving anyone, it simply shows the contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then your scenario does not apply to every situation where slavery is an option and therefore it does not show that people in such a situation never had such a conundrum.
    I'm explaining why your hypothetical is not very believable. Please support that there were people who have been in this situation with this conundrum.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Typically no, but if there was a situation where doing such a thing was the least immoral option averrable, then I would not consider it immoral.
    Then I guess that's where you and I differ, since I believe that morally, owning a person in abrogation of their freedom and rights as a human being is never justified or justifiable, whatever the circumstances and no matter the reasons. Thank you for answering, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In the situation where I think it could be moral, I get that by weighing it against all of the alternatives.
    Again, the hypothetical situation you're referring to has failed to pass muster, because if there were ever a problem which slavery could address, that problem could be addressed without requiring that people are taken as possessions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As an analogy, I think it's generally immoral to push over a little girl. But if something was about to hit her in the head with the kind of force that would severely injure or kill her, then pushing her down so she doesn't get hit is a more moral option than not pushing her down. So I don't hold that pushing down girls is a moral thing but situations can arise where it is moral.
    This analogy fails for the simple reason that you are pushing the girl in order to help her, and not in order to protect yourself.
    A more accurate analogy would be if something is about to hit you in the head, and to save yourself you have to push over a little girl in such a way that she is paralyzed for life.

  10. #29
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Second, “may” is a fairly recent interpretation/translation of what the bible actually says. Looking at older translations such as the KJV we have “shall” instead of “may”, and while “shall” and “may” differ only slightly in meaning, their difference is what is crucial here. So, it’s not that ownership may be permanent, it shall be permanent. Further, looking at the Greek we have έσονται, which means “will be”, and is used throughout the book as “will be” and a few times as “shall be”.
    First, let me applaud your improved use of hermeneutics. However, you’ve made a slight error here. The original text is in Hebrew, not Greek. Translating from Greek, an indo-european language into English, another indo-european language is somewhat less complex than comparing Hebrew, a Semitic language to English. Semitic and Indo-European languages do not share a known root, have vastly different noun structures, extremely different verb constructs, and radically different grammar.

    Why don’t we look at that verse set in the actual Hebrew, and I think we can see that you are interpreting the KJV (extremely early modern English) in an incorrect manner.

    25:46 וְהִתְנַחֲלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו לֹא־תִרְדֶּה בֹו בְּפָֽרֶךְ׃ ס
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/.../t_conc_115046

    And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
    ibid.
    The specific words relevant to our argument are “inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen…” You’ll notice the words “them for” are italicized, meaning they are inferred, but not present in the original text due to the different structure of Hebrew.
    The relevant Hebrew words are: yarash, 'achuzzah, `abad.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H3423&t=KJV
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...ngs=H272&t=KJV
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H5647&t=KJV

    Literally this is translated as “take possession through inheritance (yarash) of the possession (‘achuzzah) that is their labor (‘abad). The verse never refers to them as a specific person, that only occurs in the English translation to clarify something that isn’t clear in English, but is obvious in Hebrew. ‘abad, used several times in this chapter refers to the work done by another or their status as doing work, not their existence as people or their essence as a person.

    Thus we have no basis in this verse to say that it is implying their bodies, their souls, or their humanity is being inherited, only their ownership of their labor.


    Your second point revolving around the status of possessions forever ignores the point made entirely. Your use of the word “shall” is not present in the original Hebrew. That is an inference, again, to conform a Semitic language to a Indo-European language. It also ignores the context of the verse and the additional rules imparted on the masters in that relationship.

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    2) The owner has not injured the slave.
    3) The slave has not become disabled.
    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).
    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.
    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/25-46.htm
    The verse you cite allows for permanent servitude, but only in the most awkward of understandings. Jewish concepts of servitude allowed for the redemption from slavery through a large set of outs, including work, injury, disability, redemption, marriage, manumission, poor treatment, amongst a host of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futureboy
    Please indicate where I appealed to any specific type of slavery.
    Post 8. You indicate that the base of support you are using is the fact that we have laws against slavery. The US has laws against chattel slavery, thus that is the form you are referencing.

    The US doesn’t have laws against indentured servitude as such, nor even specific performance (the requirement under law to perform labor after a breach of contract), thus you aren’t covering those concepts in your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futureboy
    Owning labour did not come into the discussion until you brought it into it, therefore the bible condoning ownership of labour is your claim to support. Please do so or retract it.
    Please see above. Additionally, I was offering at as a counter to clarify what you need to support. You’ve made a claim that certain verses support that concept, but you’ve offered no coherent defense that I can see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futureboy
    Ex 21:21 clearly refers to the slave as the property, not the slave’s labour.
    How so? The verse discusses the loss to the owner of the slave’s value. Since the value of the slave in this context is his labor, not his esoteric worth as a human being. You’ll need to offer a bit more support for your inference here than just your assertion.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that the verse is referring to the slaves personhood rather than the labor or some other criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futureboy
    Deut 20:14 clearly refers to the people being taken as plunder, not their labour. Furthermore, please support your claim that Deut 20:14 says to "not kill women and children".

    In any case, here are some specific references to ownership of people, not labour:
    Lev 25:45 - “they shall be your possession”
    Lev 25:46 - “inherit them as a possession”
    Well no, Deut 20:14 says: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.”

    Again, this is an entire sentence, not just one little section. It specifically refers to taking the spoils and “eating” them (‘akal, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...ngs=H398&t=KJV) which means to consume or use them. IE you aren’t just taking the women and children, you are taking them for a purpose (in this case to provide labor within the Talmudic laws). So you’ll need to provide some kind of external evidence that what is being commanded to the Israelites here is that they take possession of the person, rather than their outputs as the Hebrew seems to indicate.

    The structure of the verse indicates the command is not to kill the women and children. If I am commanded to take possession of a piece of paper, I fail that command if I burn it, right? Likewise, the verse here (and its context) indicate that the Israelites are clearly being commanded to take them with them, not kill them. Further, there is almost universal consensus from Biblical commentaries that what is meant here is to preserve the women and children from death. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/20-14.htm


    As for Leviticus 25, please see my initial response. You infer that it means to own them because you are reading it in an Indo-European language rather than consulting the Hebrew structure from the original text. There nouns and verbs used (specifically ‘abad) in Leviticus 25 are, as I already pointed out, referring to the work being down, or to take possession of their status as workers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futureboy
    I have supported the link between our society’s morals and our laws. Please support that an objective moral code is required.
    No, you said that laws are derived from some moral code, but that doesn’t mean that laws contain our moral code or are a one to one representation of our moral code. If you are going to maintain the existence of laws as the base for the support of your OP you have to show a couple of underlying premises;

    1) US laws are referring to the same concept as the Bible (Chattel slavery vs servitude)
    2) US laws represent the sum total of our moral code, ie that we can accurately assess the Bible’s relationship to our moral code by just reviewing US law. Alternatively, you could show where you obtained this access to our moral code for review.
    3) That the moral code on which the US laws are based is superior to other moral codes.

    That it needs to be objective should be relatively obvious. Your conclusion in the OP was, “the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.” This is an objective statement rather than a subjective statement. The Bible cannot be considered a moral guide applies to all people. The subjective version of your conclusion is “I do not consider the Bible a moral guide.”

    If you actually meant the latter, sure it wouldn’t need to be an objective moral code. If you meant the former, that no one should consider it a code, then you’ll need to offer an objective moral code to compare it to.

    Let’s say you offered just a subjective moral code, one that Future finds correct, but that wouldn’t necessarily apply to Mican, or MT, or Steve down the road. If that code only applies to you, in what sense can you use it to form a conclusion that applies to Mican, MT, or Steve? If action X is only wrong in your opinion, in what sense should we base a universal conclusion upon it?

    Steve finds double dipping morally reprehensible.
    We should execute people who double dip.

    You can sense the fallacy and disconnect in that argument based on the switch from a subjective premise to an objective conclusion. Thus you need to provide an objective moral code if you are going to derive an objectively applied conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futureboy
    No, you asked where the moral judgement of it was coming from, and I gave the examples of the laws against it and organizations opposing it. You then claimed that moral codes and legal codes should not be conflated. Please support that moral and legal codes are not connected in any way.
    Strawman, I didn’t say they were unrelated. That is not the form of your argument or my request for you to support it.

    Let’s review the form of your premises of your argument a bit to clarify what is being asked and why.

    Your argument is of this form:

    1) The Bible says A is good.
    2) A is actually bad (this is an unstated premise in your OP).
    3) Therefore the Bible is incorrect about what is good.

    2 is what I’ve asked you to support. 2 is actually a couple of related premises.

    2a) B is bad according to moral code X.
    2b) Moral code X is superior to the Biblical moral code.
    2c) B in moral code X is the same concept as A in the Bible

    You’ve offered the existence of US laws as defense of 2a. The problem is, the existence of a single law does not show that this was either based on a moral precept, or that it was based on the precept you claim (slavery is bad). Nor have you shown that this law is the sum total of our moral thinking on the subject rather than just a cherry-picked isolated example (there are quite a few laws related to bondage and involuntary servitude). The relevant question is, what moral code were the legislatures using to create that law? It is only by consulting that underlying code that we can actually adjudicate the truth value of 2a.
    You’ve offered no defense of 2b at all. So this premise is unsupported.

    Likewise, you’ve offered no support for 2c either.

    So we can’t argue that your conclusion follows until you have a valid argument with supported premises.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, let me applaud your improved use of hermeneutics. However, you’ve made a slight error here. The original text is in Hebrew, not Greek. Translating from Greek, an indo-european language into English, another indo-european language is somewhat less complex than comparing Hebrew, a Semitic language to English. Semitic and Indo-European languages do not share a known root, have vastly different noun structures, extremely different verb constructs, and radically different grammar.

    Why don’t we look at that verse set in the actual Hebrew, and I think we can see that you are interpreting the KJV (extremely early modern English) in an incorrect manner.

    25:46 וְהִתְנַחֲלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו לֹא־תִרְדֶּה בֹו בְּפָֽרֶךְ׃ ס
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/.../t_conc_115046

    And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
    ibid.
    The specific words relevant to our argument are “inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen…” You’ll notice the words “them for” are italicized, meaning they are inferred, but not present in the original text due to the different structure of Hebrew.
    The relevant Hebrew words are: yarash, 'achuzzah, `abad.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H3423&t=KJV
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...ngs=H272&t=KJV
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H5647&t=KJV

    Literally this is translated as “take possession through inheritance (yarash) of the possession (‘achuzzah) that is their labor (‘abad). The verse never refers to them as a specific person, that only occurs in the English translation to clarify something that isn’t clear in English, but is obvious in Hebrew. ‘abad, used several times in this chapter refers to the work done by another or their status as doing work, not their existence as people or their essence as a person.

    Thus we have no basis in this verse to say that it is implying their bodies, their souls, or their humanity is being inherited, only their ownership of their labor.


    Your second point revolving around the status of possessions forever ignores the point made entirely. Your use of the word “shall” is not present in the original Hebrew. That is an inference, again, to conform a Semitic language to a Indo-European language. It also ignores the context of the verse and the additional rules imparted on the masters in that relationship.

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    2) The owner has not injured the slave.
    3) The slave has not become disabled.
    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).
    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.
    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/25-46.htm
    The verse you cite allows for permanent servitude, but only in the most awkward of understandings. Jewish concepts of servitude allowed for the redemption from slavery through a large set of outs, including work, injury, disability, redemption, marriage, manumission, poor treatment, amongst a host of others.



    Post 8. You indicate that the base of support you are using is the fact that we have laws against slavery. The US has laws against chattel slavery, thus that is the form you are referencing.

    The US doesn’t have laws against indentured servitude as such, nor even specific performance (the requirement under law to perform labor after a breach of contract), thus you aren’t covering those concepts in your argument.



    Please see above. Additionally, I was offering at as a counter to clarify what you need to support. You’ve made a claim that certain verses support that concept, but you’ve offered no coherent defense that I can see.


    How so? The verse discusses the loss to the owner of the slave’s value. Since the value of the slave in this context is his labor, not his esoteric worth as a human being. You’ll need to offer a bit more support for your inference here than just your assertion.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that the verse is referring to the slaves personhood rather than the labor or some other criteria.


    Well no, Deut 20:14 says: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.”

    Again, this is an entire sentence, not just one little section. It specifically refers to taking the spoils and “eating” them (‘akal, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...ngs=H398&t=KJV) which means to consume or use them. IE you aren’t just taking the women and children, you are taking them for a purpose (in this case to provide labor within the Talmudic laws). So you’ll need to provide some kind of external evidence that what is being commanded to the Israelites here is that they take possession of the person, rather than their outputs as the Hebrew seems to indicate.

    The structure of the verse indicates the command is not to kill the women and children. If I am commanded to take possession of a piece of paper, I fail that command if I burn it, right? Likewise, the verse here (and its context) indicate that the Israelites are clearly being commanded to take them with them, not kill them. Further, there is almost universal consensus from Biblical commentaries that what is meant here is to preserve the women and children from death. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/20-14.htm


    As for Leviticus 25, please see my initial response. You infer that it means to own them because you are reading it in an Indo-European language rather than consulting the Hebrew structure from the original text. There nouns and verbs used (specifically ‘abad) in Leviticus 25 are, as I already pointed out, referring to the work being down, or to take possession of their status as workers.


    No, you said that laws are derived from some moral code, but that doesn’t mean that laws contain our moral code or are a one to one representation of our moral code. If you are going to maintain the existence of laws as the base for the support of your OP you have to show a couple of underlying premises;

    1) US laws are referring to the same concept as the Bible (Chattel slavery vs servitude)
    2) US laws represent the sum total of our moral code, ie that we can accurately assess the Bible’s relationship to our moral code by just reviewing US law. Alternatively, you could show where you obtained this access to our moral code for review.
    3) That the moral code on which the US laws are based is superior to other moral codes.

    That it needs to be objective should be relatively obvious. Your conclusion in the OP was, “the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.” This is an objective statement rather than a subjective statement. The Bible cannot be considered a moral guide applies to all people. The subjective version of your conclusion is “I do not consider the Bible a moral guide.”

    If you actually meant the latter, sure it wouldn’t need to be an objective moral code. If you meant the former, that no one should consider it a code, then you’ll need to offer an objective moral code to compare it to.

    Let’s say you offered just a subjective moral code, one that Future finds correct, but that wouldn’t necessarily apply to Mican, or MT, or Steve down the road. If that code only applies to you, in what sense can you use it to form a conclusion that applies to Mican, MT, or Steve? If action X is only wrong in your opinion, in what sense should we base a universal conclusion upon it?

    Steve finds double dipping morally reprehensible.
    We should execute people who double dip.

    You can sense the fallacy and disconnect in that argument based on the switch from a subjective premise to an objective conclusion. Thus you need to provide an objective moral code if you are going to derive an objectively applied conclusion.



    Strawman, I didn’t say they were unrelated. That is not the form of your argument or my request for you to support it.

    Let’s review the form of your premises of your argument a bit to clarify what is being asked and why.

    Your argument is of this form:

    1) The Bible says A is good.
    2) A is actually bad (this is an unstated premise in your OP).
    3) Therefore the Bible is incorrect about what is good.

    2 is what I’ve asked you to support. 2 is actually a couple of related premises.

    2a) B is bad according to moral code X.
    2b) Moral code X is superior to the Biblical moral code.
    2c) B in moral code X is the same concept as A in the Bible

    You’ve offered the existence of US laws as defense of 2a. The problem is, the existence of a single law does not show that this was either based on a moral precept, or that it was based on the precept you claim (slavery is bad). Nor have you shown that this law is the sum total of our moral thinking on the subject rather than just a cherry-picked isolated example (there are quite a few laws related to bondage and involuntary servitude). The relevant question is, what moral code were the legislatures using to create that law? It is only by consulting that underlying code that we can actually adjudicate the truth value of 2a.
    You’ve offered no defense of 2b at all. So this premise is unsupported.

    Likewise, you’ve offered no support for 2c either.

    So we can’t argue that your conclusion follows until you have a valid argument with supported premises.


    Squatch,
    (I must say, your attention to detail is exquisite. I would love to have the time that your responses would require so I could adequately respond in kind. I understand why Apok gave you the reigns, you are indeed a very formidable opponent. But I don't and I am new to debate so your patience is appreciated).


    However, god's word "is supposed to be able to be understood by the village idiot ("available to all"). Actual people can't be expected to be able to invest the kind of effort you have, just to understand some very basic tenants of being a human being(like "owning" or "not owning" another human is ok or not). Indeed, in the days the bible was written, few could read. These semantical squabbles would never come up. These people didn't have 911 or lawyers. They didn't sit on the couch watching tv pondering ethics of a long ago society. Somebody came, overpowered your town, killed your men, took your women and children as "slaves".
    And did with them mostly as they pleased. Exactly like what is currently being done in the middle east regarding "isis". They say their religion is "the one". They move on a town. If they can take it. They take it all!. Steal anything valuable. destroy that which doesn't agree with them. Kill the men. Take the women and children as "property/slaves".

    What part is different from the bible descriptions? History repeats (especially in the middle east).

    Also, I believe you mentioned that "the least immoral option" isn't necessarily immoral.
    Can you defend that? I can't think of an instance where I agree???

  12. Thanks Squatch347, futureboy thanked for this post
  13. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The specific words relevant to our argument are “inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen…” You’ll notice the words “them for” are italicized, meaning they are inferred, but not present in the original text due to the different structure of Hebrew.
    Yes, and there's a reason why those words are inferred ... I wonder why? Did they just magically appear there, or did some evil translator, who wanted to sabotage the bible's claim to moral authority, put them in there on purpose so that we'd now question the bible's validity as a moral guide?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The relevant Hebrew words are: yarash, 'achuzzah, `abad. Literally this is translated as “take possession through inheritance (yarash) of the possession (‘achuzzah) that is their labor (‘abad). The verse never refers to them as a specific person, that only occurs in the English translation to clarify something that isn’t clear in English, but is obvious in Hebrew. ‘abad, used several times in this chapter refers to the work done by another or their status as doing work, not their existence as people or their essence as a person.
    The first problem is that you are incorrectly interpreting 'abad to mean labour as an object which can be possessed. Upon inspecting your source, it's clear that 'abad doesn't mean labour (noun), it means to do labour (verb). You can't possess a verb. This is a crucial difference since it confirms, yet again, that ownership is not of the labour (noun), but of the people for the purpose of doing labour (verb).

    Second, even if I accepted your claim that Lev 25:46 states ownership of labour and not people (which I don't), we need only look to the previous passage (Lev 25:45), where we again have 'achuzzah regarding ownership of possessions, but no 'abad for labour - instead there is ben (son or child), towshab (strangers/residents) and mishpachah (family). That's because this passage is, like the others, referring to the ownership ('achuzzah) of people, and not their labour.

    Also, the fact that specific clear reference to people appears to be missing from Lev 25:46 can be easily explained by the fact that Lev 25:45 clearly indicates that the people are the possessions. Indeed, this also explains why the translations have the inferred "them for" italicized, as you so astutely pointed out. So we can rule out magic and evil translators.

    Bottom line: you have not supported that the bible clearly mandates owning labour as a possession and not people. But even if you did, it would fail to bring into question the other verses which clearly condone and mandate the treatment of people as property (being allowed to buy/sell/inherit them as possessions, and beat them to death).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    2) The owner has not injured the slave.
    3) The slave has not become disabled.
    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).
    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.
    Please provide references for these.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The verse you cite allows for permanent servitude, but
    Thank you for confirming, the "but" is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the bible mandates ownership of people as property, whether permanent or not is not part of OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Post 8. You indicate that the base of support you are using is the fact that we have laws against slavery. The US has laws against chattel slavery, thus that is the form you are referencing.
    Nice strawman and misrepresenting what I stated. I clearly began that statement by clarifying what was being opposed. Let's read it again: "Our secular moral system has identified that treating people as property is wrong, period. We have laws against it and organizations devoted to eradicating it."
    While I certainly understand your motivation for doing so, I find it somewhat dishonest that you are still so eagerly trying to separate this into different forms of slavery when from the very first post it has been explicitly clear that we're talking about "owning a person as property".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    How so? The verse discusses the loss to the owner of the slave’s value. Since the value of the slave in this context is his labor, not his esoteric worth as a human being. You’ll need to offer a bit more support for your inference here than just your assertion.
    The verse doesn't say "his labour is his money", but "he is his money". "He" means person, not labour. Also, there's nothing esoteric about the slave's (person's, not labour's) worth to the owner. The owner paid money and bought a person as a posession, and that's what is being referred to here.

    Please support or retract your claim that the context here is the value of the slave is his labor, or at least that the verse refers to any labour in any way.

    By the way, do you think is it moral to allow beating slaves to death?
    If not, then why (how did you determine that it isn't)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well no,
    Then why did you phrase it that way in your previous post?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, this is an entire sentence, not just one little section. It specifically refers to taking the spoils and “eating” them (‘akal, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...ngs=H398&t=KJV) which means to consume or use them. IE you aren’t just taking the women and children, you are taking them for a purpose (in this case to provide labor within the Talmudic laws). So you’ll need to provide some kind of external evidence that what is being commanded to the Israelites here is that they take possession of the person, rather than their outputs as the Hebrew seems to indicate.
    While I understand your reasons for doing so, this is unfortunately another misinterpretation. Again, from your source, there are only a couple situations where 'akal is used to speak about people where it then means: "... to eat up, to devour a people, the poor, used of princes who consume the wealth of a people, oppressing and impoverishing them ... In other places, to eat is to destroy by war and slaughter." Nothing about labour there. Please support your claim that 'akal is referring to using labour of people.
    Furthermore, the use of 'akal is only in the second part of the sentence, so there's no reason to accept your claim that 'akal is being used to refer to labour and not people:
    "But the women, and the little ones, ... , even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself (bazaz); and thou shalt eat ('akal) the spoil of thine enemies."
    So we have the first part where the women and children (and some other things) are subjects to the verb bazaz, which means "to spoil, plunder, prey upon, seize".
    Lacking any support for 'akal as used to mean "consume or use labour", at best all we can get from this passage by linking the subjects of the first part with the verb of the second part is that the people are eaten up, devoured, their wealth consumed, and/or they are oppressed and impoverished.

    Therefore, you still haven't provided any support that the bible implies taking ownership of labour and not people. So #1 still stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Further, there is almost universal consensus from Biblical commentaries that what is meant here is to preserve the women and children from death.
    Yes, so that they could be taken as property and enslaved. Please support that the purpose was otherwise.

    Incidentally, God had no problem with the Israelites killing all the inhabitants of Heshbon in Deut 2:30-34, women and children included. He even manipulated the will of their king Sihon to ensure that Heshbon would fall into the hands of the Israelites. I guess that means he's against slavery (owning people as property), since he had the Israelites kill the women and children instead of enslave them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, you said that laws are derived from some moral code, but that doesn’t mean that laws contain our moral code or are a one to one representation of our moral code. If you are going to maintain the existence of laws as the base for the support of your OP you have to show a couple of underlying premises;

    1) US laws are referring to the same concept as the Bible (Chattel slavery vs servitude)
    2) US laws represent the sum total of our moral code, ie that we can accurately assess the Bible’s relationship to our moral code by just reviewing US law. Alternatively, you could show where you obtained this access to our moral code for review.
    3) That the moral code on which the US laws are based is superior to other moral codes.

    That it needs to be objective should be relatively obvious. Your conclusion in the OP was, “the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.” This is an objective statement rather than a subjective statement. The Bible cannot be considered a moral guide applies to all people. The subjective version of your conclusion is “I do not consider the Bible a moral guide.”

    If you actually meant the latter, sure it wouldn’t need to be an objective moral code. If you meant the former, that no one should consider it a code, then you’ll need to offer an objective moral code to compare it to.

    Let’s say you offered just a subjective moral code, one that Future finds correct, but that wouldn’t necessarily apply to Mican, or MT, or Steve down the road. If that code only applies to you, in what sense can you use it to form a conclusion that applies to Mican, MT, or Steve? If action X is only wrong in your opinion, in what sense should we base a universal conclusion upon it?

    Steve finds double dipping morally reprehensible.
    We should execute people who double dip.

    You can sense the fallacy and disconnect in that argument based on the switch from a subjective premise to an objective conclusion. Thus you need to provide an objective moral code if you are going to derive an objectively applied conclusion.
    You are confusing objective moral code/system with objective observations. Whether a moral system is an objective/subjective moral code (whatever that means) is irrelevant.
    Here's how it works: Our secular moral system has determined that owning people as property goes against our goals and values, and therefore make the evaluation that owning people as property is morally wrong according to our moral system. That determination is based wholly on objective facts and observations.
    Therefore, based on our contemporary morality, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide, since it condones and mandates slavery (owning people as property), which has been objectively identified as going against our goals and values.

    Please explain what an "objective moral code" is and support why it's required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Strawman, I didn’t say they were unrelated.
    So they are not unrelated? And don't call me Strawman :p

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You’ve offered the existence of US laws as defense of 2a. The problem is, the existence of a single law does not show that this was either based on a moral precept, or that it was based on the precept you claim (slavery is bad). Nor have you shown that this law is the sum total of our moral thinking on the subject rather than just a cherry-picked isolated example (there are quite a few laws related to bondage and involuntary servitude). The relevant question is, what moral code were the legislatures using to create that law? It is only by consulting that underlying code that we can actually adjudicate the truth value of 2a.
    You’ve offered no defense of 2b at all. So this premise is unsupported.

    Likewise, you’ve offered no support for 2c either.

    So we can’t argue that your conclusion follows until you have a valid argument with supported premises.
    Sigh, we could go back and forth like this all day. The bottom line is that our contemporary and secular morality considers slavery (owning people as property) to be wrong, period. This is not just about the laws in the US, but about the laws and moral opinions of all the developed world. If you contest that, then please provide a single authority, organization, or group which openly supports or declares that slavery (owning people as property) is not wrong and support why they should be taken seriously over the vast amount of organizations and laws which oppose it, and then we can have a discussion about whether there is any reason to question that slavery (owning people as property) is wrong.

    I understand that you might think I just don't truly know the bible and need to simply invest more time in getting to know it.
    I also understand your conviction in defending the bible and providing websites and information which also defend it.
    But the very fact that those websites even exist and that we're even having this discussion forces us to deal with a number of questions.
    If it isn't moral to own another human as property, then why couldn't the bible simply state that it isn't?
    Why are there so many passages which condone and mandate it and just a precious few which only by the most tenuous interpretation lead us to question the validity of the others?
    There are countless other rules which are expressed in such simple terms which are not remotely as important as slavery.
    So instead of the 10 commandments having ridiculous rules like "don't boil a goat in its mother's milk", why isn't there something like "don't enslave people or treat them as if they're property"?
    To me, this clearly leads to the conclusion that, instead of being the perfect commands of a perfect deity, the books of bible merely reflect the cultural norms which existed a the time they were written.
    And since our civilization has long since moved past those times, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide now.

    By the way, you still keep avoiding these questions:
    Do you think it is ever moral to own a person as property?
    If yes, then why (how did you determine it to be moral)?
    If no, then why (how did you determine it to be immoral)?
    As I said to MT: I’m having a discussion with you, and need to know where you personally stand, not just how you try to rationalize some book. If you can’t personally answer these simple questions to me, then I see little point in continuing to engage in this discussion with you.

  14. #32
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Therefore, based on our contemporary morality, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide, since it condones…slavery
    I want to start off exploring more about what you mean when you say there is a “secular moral code” and how you know what that code is. You indicated that you knew that “we” (who exactly do you mean by that, Americans? All Humans?) have an agreement on this issue because we have a law to that effect. So was there no moral prohibition before the law? If not, how can there have been a moral problem with the Biblical tradition 2000 years prior?


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    The bottom line is that our contemporary and secular morality considers slavery (owning people as property) to be wrong, period.
    Does our contemporary and secular morality consider adultery ok then? There are no laws against it in the US after all.

    What about feeding the homeless? We do have laws against that, has our secular morality determined that to be immoral?

    Perhaps we could acknowledge there isn’t a one to one relationship between law and morality?

    And, if so, how do you determine what exactly our “secular moral code” is? It has seemed, both in this thread, and in others, that you (futureboy) just seem to ‘know’ it and expect us to. Imagine I was an alien landing on earth for the first time. How would I know what humanity’s “secular moral code” is? How would I go about evaluating it?


    Importantly, why would I think that this particular moral code trumps others? Why would I say it is “more” moral than other moral codes.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    You are confusing objective moral code/system with objective observations. Whether a moral system is an objective/subjective moral code (whatever that means) is irrelevant.
    Here's how it works: Our secular moral system has determined that owning people as property goes against our goals and values, and therefore make the evaluation that owning people as property is morally wrong according to our moral system. That determination is based wholly on objective facts

    and observations
    .
    I never relied on objective observations in my argument. That seems to be an error in your thinking on this issue. I’m assuming you mean that your determination that “our secular moral code precludes slavery” is based on an objective fact and observation?
    Ok, what is that observation or fact? That is exactly what my Challenge to support a claim. would like you to support.

    Now, as for an objective moral code, I’m a bit surprised you aren’t familiar with the concept given your participation in the other thread. An objective moral code is one where the moral duties and obligations are true, regardless of individual taste or preference. IE “it is wrong to murder babies, even if Steve thinks it is ok.
    A subjective moral code is one where the statement “it is wrong to murder babies” is true or false depending on the person. It is true for Dave, but false for Steve.

    It is the same principle differentiating objective and subjective claims. For example, “Light travels at 186,000 miles per second” is an objective premise. It doesn’t matter if I evaluate the premise or if you do, it is still a true or false premise. To put it another way, it’s truth value is not dependent on me or you.

    “Rome is further away than Florence” is a subjective premise. If you are in Africa it is false. If you are in Europe it is true. It’s truth value is dependent upon the person evaluating it.

    To tie this back to your argument, if you don’t have an objective moral code with which you are comparing your Biblical claims to, you can’t form an objective conclusion. Let’s try to demonstrate this with the last Premise I offered.

    P1) Fuel should be conserved.
    P2) Rome is further away than Florence.
    C1) You should never go to Rome.

    Obviously the conclusion here doesn’t follow because P2 is subjective, but the Conclusion is objective. I can’t say that no one should go to Rome, if you were in Southern Italy, Rome would be a better idea given P1.

    Likewise, if you are going to maintain something like “the Bible is not a moral guide” you need to have an objective premise like “it disagrees with this objective, better, moral code” in your argument. Simply arguing that it disagrees with your personal view point isn’t any more compelling than it would be if the argument were reversed.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    So they are not unrelated? And don't call me Strawman :p
    It is important to engage arguments as they are presented, not as you might wish for them to have been presented, hence the strawman accusation. You fought against a position that I didn’t offer, that laws and morality are totally unrelated. Rather, I was pointing out that there is a whole host of options between unrelated and causal, most of which you’ve ignored or not dealt with.



    Before we move on to the textual criticism, let’s review the premises of your argument for clarity’s sake. My comments are in blue.

    P1) The Bible says A is acceptable. No disagreement here. Your argument is actually that the Bible says A is acceptable not mandatory, that is a much higher burden that you don’t need to bear and, more importantly, not the case.

    P2) A is actually bad (this is an unstated premise in your OP). This premise is composed of three sub-premises.
    P2a) B is bad according to moral code X. This is unsupported. You’ve made a claim that it is bad according to “our secular moral code” but seem to have backed off how you actually know that is the case. This premise needs to be supported for the conclusion to be correct.

    P2b) Moral code X is superior to the Biblical moral code. No support is offered here at all. This premise establishes which moral code we should accept if your other premises hold. Without it, all we can conclude is that they “differ” not that one is “better” than the other.

    P2c) B in moral code X is the same concept as A in the Bible. The last section of this response deals heavily with this premise. I think it is moot if you can’t support the other premises above it, and you’ve offered no such support as of yet for 2b. The nature of our disagreement also depends heavily on 2a, hence I’ve moved that section to the end. There isn’t much profit in pursuing it until you define what you mean and where you get the premise for 2a.

    C1) Therefore the Bible is incorrect about what is good.





    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yes, and there's a reason why those words are inferred ... I wonder why? Did they just magically appear there, or did some evil translator, who wanted to sabotage the bible's claim to moral authority, put them in there on purpose so that we'd now question the bible's validity as a moral guide?
    This is an odd response. It seems to add nothing to the context or meaning of the argument. I clearly didn't mean the words should be ignored, I was simply explaining why they were italicized in my quote, a relatively standard thing to do when quoting material with textual emphasis. I would assume the translator added them to make the Hebrew, Semitic grammar comply with standard English, Indo-European grammar.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    The first problem is that you are incorrectly interpreting 'abad to mean labour as an object which can be possessed. Upon inspecting your source, it's clear that 'abad doesn't mean labour (noun), it means to do labour (verb). You can't possess a verb. This is a crucial difference since it confirms, yet again, that ownership is not of the labour (noun), but of the people for the purpose of doing labour (verb).
    You'll notice that I never said it was a noun, I understand why you misinterpreted it to imply that it was a noun, but that is a bit of a strawman. The word 'abad specifically refers to the activity done in the service of others. To whit;


    to work, serve
    (Qal)
    to labour, work, do work
    to work for another, serve another by labour
    to serve as subjects
    to serve (God)
    to serve (with Levitical service)
    (Niphal)
    to be worked, be tilled (of land)
    to make oneself a servant
    (Pual) to be worked
    (Hiphil)
    to compel to labour or work, cause to labour, cause to serve
    to cause to serve as subjects
    (Hophal) to be led or enticed to serve

    That usage of the term requires the the ownership of that labor by another, hence why it is service rather than any of the other five terms for labor in Hebrew. Your statement, "you can't own a noun" is problematic for two reasons. The first is that it is simply incorrect, the second is that it, again, relies on your application of indo-european grammar to a semitic languge. Rather than walk you through the vast, vast sources on this, I'll simply ask you to support or retract that a verb cannot have an ownership attachment in Biblical Hebrew.

    While we wait for that, I'll point out that even in English your point is simply incorrect. We create nouns out of verbs all the time in English by implying ownership. By simply noting the ownership of the activity we often create a noun from a verb. That is the literal origin of the noun "business." It refers to the activity or profession of someone, but became a noun as that profession became more associated with independent companies and eventually corporations. We can list a relatively long set of these verb to noun transitions with relative ease. Race, Hunt, Logging, Trade, etc. We also do this when adding the term "the" before a verb. I'm "in the running" or "in the know." etc.

    Returning to the text at hand, the verb's proper definition fits my explanation more closely than yours. In fact, your take would seem to indicate that the Bible is incorrectly asserting ownership of a verb (which you believe to be incorrect). Rather, it is noting that the service (labor) done for others is a possession through inheritance. If the verse was, as you state, referring back to the object of the last verse (something btw not done in biblical Hebrew, nor English until the 1200s) then the word 'achuzzah would not be present. That is a clarifying word in this context nothing that the following word, 'abad is a possession. It makes no sense, and rather should have been the pronoun 'el-leh. The lack of th at pronoun clearly indicates that no such "call back" was being offered. Rather, the possession in question is the word in position three, 'abad, which fits the more appropriate Hebrew grammar structure.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Bottom line: you have not supported that the bible clearly mandates owning labour as a possession and not people.
    I think, given the above, this point is relatively settled (though I imagine you will find a quibble or two in there). Regardless, this is not my claim to support. I used that term as a counter to illustrate your initial claim, one that you have not supported, which is that the Bible mandates the ownership of people as beings. I'll also note that I challenged you to support that premise in my last post with no effect. Your options here are to officially support or to retract that claim. Again, Challenge to support a claim. please support that the verse is referring to the slaves personhood rather than the labor or some other criteria.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Please provide references for these.
    I did, the first time I referenced that claim in post if you read through the commentaries. I'll add some additional references or comments in blue:

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    [Obviously this is the case, he can’t be a slave for life if he has been manumitted.

    2) The owner has not injured the slave.

    • [Exodus 21:26,27, any owner that does permanent damage to their slave must set the slave free because of the damage. You’ll notice there is no requirement for intent here as in other places, this is noted by Talmud scholars as indication that even damage done as part of the work or in an accident counts.
    • From the Talmud, any injury that is permanent is included and requires manumission. (KID. 24a).
    • Similarly, and you won’t find this in other legal codes, including our own, if a man injures another man’s slave, he must pay the owner for the loss of the labor, the slave must be freed, and then the man must support the now freedman with charity. (GIT 12b).
    • Again, any permanent damage frees a slave. KID 24a.


    3) The slave has not become disabled.

    • Obviously, the same verse in Exodus applies here, since a disability is a permanent injury.
    • A slave is free if there is any grievous injury caused by the master, this includes in the process of doing service for the master (work place injury). (Kid. 24b–25a; Yad, Avadim 5:4–14; Sh. Ar., YD 267:27–39).
    • Same as above, any injury that has a permanent nature mandates manumission. (Kid. 24a).
    • Any permanent damage frees the slave. GIT 42b.
    • Any disability that makes the slave unfit for service, and this includes natural disability from disease or age, frees the slave. KID 25b.



    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).

    • In Leviticus 25, a slave is guaranteed his own property and earnings, and is able to redeem himself, or be redeemed by his family.
    • Payment of the slave’s price in money frees the slave even if the master does not wish to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • A slave can buy pack a portion of his freedom and then work during that portion of his time for his own benefit, to earn the rest of his freedom. IE if he buys back ‘half” of himself, he works every other day for himself. GIT 41b.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed. KID 6b.
    • Redemption through money earned or acquired mandates manumission. KID 8a.
    • Non-Jewish slaves only (those not freed by the Jubilee) are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will, the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free. KID 22b.



    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.

    • Deut 24 requires the payment of wages and allows slaves to collect left over crops (those not collected on the first pass, the “gleanings”) for their own use.
    • II Sam. 9:10; 16:4; 19:18, 30; cf. I Sam. 9:8 Slaves owning property and receiving wages.
    • Payment of the slave’s price frees the slave, regardless of master’s intention to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • Slaves could hold property of their own (Tosef. Ar. 1:2; Shek. 1:5; Pes. 8:2, 88b; Yev. 66a; TJ, Yev. 7:1; Tosef. BK 11:1; BB 51b–52a; Sanh. 91a, 105a; Ket. 28a; Meg. 16a; etc.),
    • Value of slave labor: Deut 15:18 implies, the work of household slave might be valued at twice the value of a hired man; regardless, Lev 25:40 specifies that the work of the household slave cannot be valued at less than that.
    • If the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given. GIT 12a.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Slaves can earn money through labor and gift. KID 11b.
    • Jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13, master has no ability to refuse this pay. KID 14b.
    • Rates at which slaves must be paid. KID 15a.
    • Slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitly, even against the master’s will. KID 23a.


    Refrences:

    GIT: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf

    KID: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf




    I’ll add to the above that there are a host of other conditions that require manumission, again, distinguishing this institution from chattel slavery.

    • A fugitive slave must not be turned over to his master. (Deut. 23:16).
    • Ben Sira adds: "If thou treat him ill and he proceeds to run away, in what way shalt thou find him?" IE mistreatment is the presumed reason for a slave escaping, thus his return to his master is forbidden. (Ecclus. 33:31).
    • The workload of a slave should never exceed his physical strength, violation of this rule can lead to manumission. (Ecclus. 33:28–29).
    • A verbal promise of release might not be sufficient, but a court will compel the master to issue a written release if a verbal promise was given. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:3 and Sh. Ar., YD 267:73–74).
    • A slave is to be released if the master bequeaths him property (Pe'ah 3:8; Git. 8b–9a; Yad, Avadim 7:9; YD 267:57).
    • A slave is freed automatically by marriage to a freewoman, or by his de facto recognition, in the presence of his master, as a free man such as reading the Torah in public. Git. 39b–40a; Yad, Avadim 8:17; YD 267:70)
    • Marriage to the master's daughter seems to have been a not infrequent means to emancipation (Pes. 113a).
    • A slave may not be sold to a non-Jew. Doing so automatically frees the slave and the master will have to pay a fine as high as ten times the slave’s sale rice (as well as being forced to redeem him from the buyer). (Git. 4:6; Git. 44a–45a; Yad, Avadim 8:1; YD 267:80).
    • A slave who has been jointly owned by two masters and is released by one becomes half-slave half-freeman; the remaining master may also be compelled by the court to release him (Git. 4:5; Yad, Avadim 7:7; YD 267:62–63).
    • The legal principle for decision was “almost every doubt in favor of freedom” and Masters were forced to manumit slaves ("Yad" 'Abadim, ix. 6).

    From the Talmud, listings of the some of the myriad of ways a slave could earn freedom. It also has some textual analysis that refutes your claim that a slave is owned as a person, rather than their labor is owned.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf

    • 8a: If a master attempts to sell his slave outside Israel and it’s protection, or event to travel outside Israel, the slave can request manumission.
    • 8b: if a man assigns property (of the non-movable type to his slave, the slave becomes ipso facto free.
    • 9a: if the slave is not specifically given to offspring, he is free. If the offspring has died or does not come to claim the slave the slave is freed.
    • 9a: promises of freedom are not retractable by the master.
    • 9b: if the slave is joint owned by husband and wife and there is a divorce, if either sets him free, he is free.
    • 12a: if the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given.
    • 20b: if a man and woman divorce and the slave runs to the woman (or man), that woman or man can free him, even if he is the ex’s property.
    • 21a: if the slave was the man’s property, but he gives the slave to his wife when they divorce, the slave cannot be transferred or willed, but is free when she dies.
    • 37b: if a slave is carried off by robbers and then ransomed to someone as a freeman, rather than explicitly sold back as a slave, he is free.
    • 38a: a slave who escapes from prison is a free man and the master can be compelled to create a writ of manumission.
    • 38a: if the master has given up hope of recovering the slave, the slave is freed regardless of how they are ransomed or released or escape.
    • 38b: if a slave woman marries a freeman, she is free. (Jews pass lineage through the female, and thus it was seen as unduly burdensome to create a perpetual slave line and prevented their ability to marry, which is seen as sacrosanct from God).
    • 38b: if a tenth man is needed to make a quorum at the synagogue, the slave is freed for the religious obligation. If the master likewise consecrates his slave, he is free. Similarly, if he declares him common property he is a free man.
    • 39b: a man who gives up hope on a slave from sickness or being lost, or being captured, frees the man.
    • 40a: if a slave marries a free woman in the presence of a master he is freed. Or if the master arranged the marriage.
    • 40a: if a master borrows money from a slave, the slave is freed.
    • 44a: if a man uses his slave as collateral to a heathen, and he defaults the man is free, if the slave escapes from the heathen he is free.
    • 44b: if a man sells his slave while abroad, he becomes free (this is one of the reasons the entire concept died out following the diaspora).

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf
    • 4a: slave has rights to end service
    • 6b: services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed.
    • 6b, Note 7: cannot be sold to non-Jew or into a case of worse service than they had.
    • 8a: slaves rank as real estate. This is important because you cannot own the land as land, that belongs to God. You can only have the usage of that land. 16a, note 9 also states this via textual analysis. “we-hithnahaltem, is really applicable to land, and intimates that heathen slaves are transmitted and acquired like land, viz. , by hazakah.”
    • 14b: jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13: master has no ability to refuse this pay.
    • 16a: slaves belong “bodily” which is associated with work, not as a person.
    • 17a: when freed, the master owes the slave a parting gift. Which is higher for non-Jew slaves.
    • 20a: the master owes a compensation for damages after manumitting the slave in many cases.
    • 20a” a man who buys a slave buys a master for himself, speaking of the large set of obligations a master has for servants.
    • 22b: hethen slaves are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free.
    • 23a: slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitely, even against the master’s will.
    • 40b: general times of freeing the slaves (religious or royal proclamations) apply even to slaves that are travelling. Freeing came during times of victory, atonement, or thanksgiving among others.
    • 63a: if a slave is purchased on condition of a release, the slave has a right to demand release after 4 years.
    • 63a: If the slave escapes the court cannot return him.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Yevamoth.pdf
    • 46a: ritual ablution emancipates a slave as part of the conversion process. Part of enslavement meant inclusion in ritual and Sabbath. If the slave chose to complete the process and become a Jew, they were automatically manumitted.
    • 66a: a daughter of a slave who wishes to marry a freeman must be freed.
    • 93b: slaves that escape their masters should not be returned to their masters, but rather are to be set free.
    • 99a: the children of an emancipated slave is a full citizen of Israel, that is a status above and beyond a freeman and virtually unheard of until the 1880s.

    There is additional clarification on just how slavery in Ancient Israel differed not only from its neighbors, but from the concept of slavery in other societies. IE how it was not chattel slavery.

    According to the traditional Jewish law, a slave is more like an indentured servant, who has rights and should be treated almost like a member of the owner's family. Maimonides wrote that, regardless whether a slave is Jewish or not, "The way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a slave, and to provide them from every dish and every drink. The early sages would give their slaves from every dish on their table. They would feed their servants before sitting to their own meals... Slaves may not be maltreated of offended - the law destined them for service, not for humiliation. Do not shout at them or be angry with them, but hear them out". In another context, Maimonides wrote that all the laws of slavery are "mercy, compassion and forbearance"
    Encyclopedia Judaica, 2007, vol. 18, p. 670

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Nice strawman and misrepresenting what I stated. I clearly began that statement by clarifying what was being opposed. Let's read it again: "Our secular moral system has identified that treating people as property is wrong, period. We have laws against it and organizations devoted to eradicating it."
    When asked what reference you used to determine that “our secular moral system…” you cite existing law and organizations. Those laws and organizations are opposed to chattel slavery, not to indentured servitude for example. Thus clarifying the differences is relevant to your argument.

    If the type of work relationship being described in the OT is different than the type described in your reading of our “secular moral system” then your argument fails validity as your conclusion does not follow from the premises. That is the point of premise 2c in the argument laid out.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    The verse doesn't say "his labour is his money", but "he is his money". "He" means person, not labour. Also, there's nothing esoteric about the slave's (person's, not labour's) worth to the owner. The owner paid money and bought a person as a posession, and that's what is being referred to here.
    The value of a person absent their output is the definition of esoteric. The value of labor is tangible and measurable, the value of a person as a person, absent that labor is philosophical. The verse here is talking about the loss to the master of the slave’s value in monetary terms. The only monetary loss of a slave’s death is value he provides.

    Regardless, all you’ve done here is reassert your position without supporting it with evidence. Please support or retract that the verse is referring to the slaves personhood rather than the labor or some other criteria. Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Please support or retract your claim that the context here is the value of the slave is his labor, or at least that the verse refers to any labour in any way.
    It is inappropriate of your to shift the burden in this manner. The claim was made by you in post 28 and needs to be either supported or retracted.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    While I understand your reasons for doing so, this is unfortunately another misinterpretation. Again, from your source, there are only a couple situations where 'akal is used to speak about people where it then means: "... to eat up, to devour a people, the poor, used of princes who consume the wealth of a people, oppressing and impoverishing them ... In other places, to eat is to destroy by war and slaughter." Nothing about labour there. Please support your claim that 'akal is referring to using labour of people.
    You seem to have skipped over the relevant text to find your cherry picked quote. The specific form of the verb used in this verse (Definition 1 in Strong’s). Clarification a states: “to eat a land, a field, a vine, is used for to eat its produce or fruit.” IE exactly the kind of usage here.

    Obviously, God isn’t commanding them to devour people, the Bible explicitly prohibits cannibalism and there is no evidence the ancient Israelites ever practiced such. Resorting to that interpretation violates the historical context and religious context this verse is given in.

    Now your quote comes from clarification e, referring specifically to Psalms which makes it less applicable given that it was written nearly a thousand years later. However, even in the section you mention what do the Princes consume? Is it the people? No, it is products of their work, their wealth. IE the product of their labor.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Yes,
    Thank you, we agree the purpose, as I stated, was to preserve them from death.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    If it isn't moral to own another human as property, then why couldn't the bible simply state that it isn't?
    Because you are conflating a whole host of relationships here into one, overly broad category. Some forms of this are bad (chattel slavery in the American South), but some have a useful place in different societies, including ours, like indentured servitude or labor contracts.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    By the way, you still keep avoiding these questions:
    I’m not avoiding the questions, I’m rejecting what seems to be an attempt to shift the burden. Your argument’s validity or truthfulness is based on its own premises and propositions, not mine.






    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Squatch,
    (I must say, your attention to detail is exquisite. I would love to have the time that your responses would require so I could adequately respond in kind. I understand why Apok gave you the reigns, you are indeed a very formidable opponent. But I don't and I am new to debate so your patience is appreciated).
    I appreciate the kind words, thank you. I completely understand the limitations of time, no worries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    However, god's word "is supposed to be able to be understood by the village idiot ("available to all"). Actual people can't be expected to be able to invest the kind of effort you have, just to understand some very basic tenants of being a human being(like "owning" or "not owning" another human is ok or not). Indeed, in the days the bible was written, few could read.
    But they also weren't expected to understand it alone. You are correct that many could not read the texts. That is why Israel has appointed "Judges" (different than our use of the word) and Rabbis to teach and help people understand those nuances. It is why there are thousands of pages of Talmudic law expounding on what is just and unjust in specific circumstances to help people in the synagogue (with the help of a learned rabbi) understand these differences. God also tells them to gather together to discuss these matters, and to ponder them over with learned men and women, and to consult the Jewish community on ethical matters.

    When God instructs the Israelites to write His "law upon your hearts" he is telling them to make His will the cornerstone of their culture. You are right that in everyday life a Jew wouldn't consult some chapter from the Talmudic interpretation of Leviticus, that would be silly. Rather, he would obey the cultural norms and morays around him. Norms based on the commandments within Leviticus (and elsewhere) and enforced by the religious and legal authorities around him. He couldn't, for example, just do as he "pleased" with a slave, there were exceptionally strict rules that could result in the slave being freed and recompensed or even with the Israelite's execution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    [Isis] say their religion is "the one". They move on a town. If they can take it. They take it all!. Steal anything valuable. destroy that which doesn't agree with them. Kill the men. Take the women and children as "property/slaves".

    What part is different from the bible descriptions? History repeats (especially in the middle east).
    The concept of slavery itself is very different. ISIS treats those it captures very differently than even what was done in the American South, let alone in a Roman or Jewish concept. ISIS militants are free to rape and murder captured women and children (and have) with impunity. The same is not true with Hebrew slavery. Permanently harming a slave led to emancipation. Murder of a slave often brought death on the master. Injury, old age, and disability required emancipation. Masters were required to provide a standard of food, medical care, lodging, and the Sabbath to their slaves. I don't think Isis is giving those it captures a day off and a sabbath meal, do you?

    Isis slaves are sadly only liberated through conflict or death, but within the OT, slaves can earn back their freedom (and you are required to pay them a statutory wage), can be freed by relatives, or through time in service. Nothing aside from the word slave is really similar to what is being done by the Lord of the Flies Isis followers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Also, I believe you mentioned that "the least immoral option" isn't necessarily immoral.
    Actually, I didn't. While I don't disagree necessarily with the concept, I'll let the original proponent make the argument himself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I can't think of an instance where I agree???
    I don't mean this as a defense of the position, nor as something to expound upon here, but an example did pop into my head as I was editing, it comes from an ethics teacher I had in grad school.

    Imagine a young woman runs up to your door in the middle of the night. She is crying, disheveled, and terrified. She begs you "you have to hide me, that serial killer is coming for me." So you hide her. Within a few minutes the deranged killer comes to the door. He says, "where is that innocent girl? I wish to rape and murder her? Tell me which way she went, if you say nothing I will burn your house to the ground."

    You would seem to have a couple of options here.

    1) Lie (immoral)

    2) Tell the truth (immoral as the innocent girl will die).


    In this case the least immoral thing (lying) would seem to be the more moral action. Obviously this is a bit of stretch, scenario wise, but it more illustrates the point by making it extreme. [As a side note, he used this as an example of the problems arising from a purely deontological ethical system where one always simply follows a basic rule set.]
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  16. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    @Squatch,
    Lying to a known rapist (since he told you he was and what he was going to do) to save an innocent girl from harm does not sound like anything immoral. In fact, how could it be considered moral to tell him where his next victim is?????
    Kinda like if a cop shoots/kills some one that is killing another person isn't immoral or murder....

    (forgive me if you have covered this with Future and I missed it)

    It seems that there are indeed different types of slavery, though we are mostly discussing women and children that became slaves after their town is attacked and the men killed. So voluntary and such doesn't apply.
    Female Hebrew's could be sold by their fathers as a slave for life (exudus 21:7-11)(though there are some exceptions).
    Male Hebrew generally after six yrs they are free

    Non-Hebrew, another standard. they can be bought, kept for life and your children can inherit them (Leviticus 25:44-46).
    If you were born into slavery, I haven't found a way to ever go free.

    So, we see there was no one size fits all "slave".

    You also were discussing the treatment of these slaves, such as if you killed a slave thru punishment you could also be killed. Exodus 21:20-21 says this, but in the next verse says as long as the slave lives, no punishment for the owner. Or Exodus 21:26-27, if you destroy your slaves eye, you must let them go free. Again, no punishment for the owner.
    This is a person who is property. There are some rules (which vary), but these people only had a life worth living if their owner so desired.

    So I respectfully disagree with your assessment of "slaves" of this time period being treated in any kind of humane way. Some were as you describe, obviously many were not.

    Please tell me, is what is advocated about slaves in the bible applicable to the treatment of people today? Why or why not?

  17. #34
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Lying to a known rapist (since he told you he was and what he was going to do) to save an innocent girl from harm does not sound like anything immoral. In fact, how could it be considered moral to tell him where his next victim is?????
    That's exactly the point. The immoral act of lying (I think we can all agree that lying isn't morally neutral) leads to moral result, because it is the least immoral act available to you in that instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    (forgive me if you have covered this with Future and I missed it)
    Don't worry, as I said, I didn't actually forward that position in the thread anywhere, I think Mican maybe? I just offered this one example as it occurred to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    It seems that there are indeed different types of slavery, though we are mostly discussing women and children that became slaves after their town is attacked and the men killed. So voluntary and such doesn't apply.
    Because that is the type future is attempting to conflate with American Chattel Slavery imo. There were a large array of conditions present in Jewish law that fell into the same Hebrew word. You could sell yourself for a period to pay off a debt. You could sell yourself for a period as collateral. You could do what in the US we would call indentured servitude where you got a larger sum at the end or up front for a legal requirement to work for a person for some period. All of these fell unto the Hebrew term alternately translated as "slave" or "bondsman."


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Female Hebrew's could be sold by their fathers as a slave for life (exudus 21:7-11)(though there are some exceptions).
    Again, not exactly. All of the same manumission rights as above applied here as well. She could free herself through earnings, she could free herself through marriage, injury, or escape. If she is Jewish, she would be freed at the Jubilee (every seven years). When it says "go out" it is referring to the concept that she won't have the freedom to travel as male servants do. It didn't mean "she can never leave her service." The term is used almost exclusively in the old testament in an "come and go" manner. The text doesn't prohibit her from being released at the Jubilee, and as I believe I cited from the Talmud yesterday, the Jubilee release was sacred, not even shirking or laziness could prevent a Jew (male or female) from being released.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Non-Hebrew, another standard. they can be bought, kept for life and your children can inherit them (Leviticus 25:44-46).
    If you were born into slavery, I haven't found a way to ever go free.
    This exact verse I have covered extensively with future. I'll try to provide a quick synopsis on the verse's meaning:

    From post 23:
    The Verses mentioned allow for lifetime ownership, they do not mandate it. Hence the term “May.” May means a conditional statement. In this case all of the following conditions must be met;

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    2) The owner has not injured the slave.
    3) The slave has not become disabled.
    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).
    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.
    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/25-46.htm

    So sure, in theory it could be lifetime service, if the slave did no work, was never injured, and no one redeemed him.


    From post 29:
    Why don’t we look at that verse set in the actual Hebrew, and I think we can see that you are interpreting the KJV (extremely early modern English) in an incorrect manner.

    25:46 וְהִתְנַחֲלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו לֹא־תִרְדֶּה בֹו בְּפָֽרֶךְ׃ ס
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/.../t_conc_115046

    And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
    ibid.
    The specific words relevant to our argument are “inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen…” You’ll notice the words “them for” are italicized, meaning they are inferred, but not present in the original text due to the different structure of Hebrew.
    The relevant Hebrew words are: yarash, 'achuzzah, `abad.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H3423&t=KJV
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...ngs=H272&t=KJV
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H5647&t=KJV

    Literally this is translated as “take possession through inheritance (yarash) of the possession (‘achuzzah) that is their labor (‘abad). The verse never refers to them as a specific person, that only occurs in the English translation to clarify something that isn’t clear in English, but is obvious in Hebrew. ‘abad, used several times in this chapter refers to the work done by another or their status as doing work, not their existence as people or their essence as a person.

    Thus we have no basis in this verse to say that it is implying their bodies, their souls, or their humanity is being inherited, only their ownership of their labor.



    As for the idea that you haven't found a way for them to be free, let me point you to my last post:

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    2) The owner has not injured the slave.
    3) The slave has not become disabled.
    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).
    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.
    6) A fugitive slave must not be turned over to his master. (Deut. 23:16).
    7) The workload of a slave should never exceed his physical strength, violation of this rule can lead to manumission. (Ecclus. 33:28–29).
    8) A verbal promise of release might not be sufficient, but a court will compel the master to issue a written release if a verbal promise was given. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:3 and Sh. Ar., YD 267:73–74).
    9) A slave is to be released if the master bequeaths him property (Pe'ah 3:8; Git. 8b–9a; Yad, Avadim 7:9; YD 267:57).
    10) A slave is freed automatically by marriage to a freewoman, or by his de facto recognition, in the presence of his master, as a free man such as reading the Torah in public. Git. 39b–40a; Yad, Avadim 8:17; YD 267:70)
    11) Marriage to the master's daughter seems to have been a not infrequent means to emancipation (Pes. 113a).
    12) A slave may not be sold to a non-Jew. Doing so automatically frees the slave and the master will have to pay a fine as high as ten times the slave’s sale rice (as well as being forced to redeem him from the buyer). (Git. 4:6; Git. 44a–45a; Yad, Avadim 8:1; YD 267:80).
    13) A slave who has been jointly owned by two masters and is released by one becomes half-slave half-freeman; the remaining master may also be compelled by the court to release him (Git. 4:5; Yad, Avadim 7:7; YD 267:62–63).
    14) If a master attempts to sell his slave outside Israel and it’s protection, or event to travel outside Israel, the slave can request manumission.
    15) if a man assigns property (of the non-movable type to his slave, the slave becomes ipso facto free.
    16) if the slave is not specifically given to offspring, he is free. If the offspring has died or does not come to claim the slave the slave is freed.
    17) if the slave is joint owned by husband and wife and there is a divorce, if either sets him free, he is free.
    18) if the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given.
    19) if a man and woman divorce and the slave runs to the woman (or man), that woman or man can free him, even if he is the ex’s property.
    20) if the slave was the man’s property, but he gives the slave to his wife when they divorce, the slave cannot be transferred or willed, but is free when she dies.
    21) if a slave is carried off by robbers and then ransomed to someone as a freeman, rather than explicitly sold back as a slave, he is free.
    22) a slave who escapes from prison is a free man and the master can be compelled to create a writ of manumission.
    23) if the master has given up hope of recovering the slave, the slave is freed regardless of how they are ransomed or released or escape.
    24) if a slave woman marries a freeman, she is free. (Jews pass lineage through the female, and thus it was seen as unduly burdensome to create a perpetual slave line and prevented their ability to marry, which is seen as sacrosanct from God).
    25) if a tenth man is needed to make a quorum at the synagogue, the slave is freed for the religious obligation. If the master likewise consecrates his slave, he is free. Similarly, if he declares him common property he is a free man.
    26) a man who gives up hope on a slave from sickness or being lost, or being captured, frees the man.
    27) if a slave marries a free woman in the presence of a master he is freed. Or if the master arranged the marriage.
    28) if a master borrows money from a slave, the slave is freed.
    29) if a man uses his slave as collateral to a heathen, and he defaults the man is free, if the slave escapes from the heathen he is free.
    30) if a man sells his slave while abroad, he becomes free (this is one of the reasons the entire concept died out following the diaspora).
    31) slave has rights to end service
    32) hethen slaves are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free.
    33) general times of freeing the slaves (religious or royal proclamations) apply even to slaves that are travelling. Freeing came during times of victory, atonement, or thanksgiving among others.
    34) if a slave is purchased on condition of a release, the slave has a right to demand release after 4 years.
    35) If the slave escapes the court cannot return him.
    36) ritual ablution emancipates a slave as part of the conversion process. Part of enslavement meant inclusion in ritual and Sabbath. If the slave chose to complete the process and become a Jew, they were automatically manumitted.
    37) a daughter of a slave who wishes to marry a freeman must be freed.


    I want to add to this point and the above the section I quoted:


    According to the traditional Jewish law, a slave is more like an indentured servant, who has rights and should be treated almost like a member of the owner's family. Maimonides wrote that, regardless whether a slave is Jewish or not, "The way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a slave, and to provide them from every dish and every drink. The early sages would give their slaves from every dish on their table. They would feed their servants before sitting to their own meals... Slaves may not be maltreated of offended - the law destined them for service, not for humiliation. Do not shout at them or be angry with them, but hear them out". In another context, Maimonides wrote that all the laws of slavery are "mercy, compassion and forbearance"
    Encyclopedia Judaica, 2007, vol. 18, p. 670


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Exodus 21:20-21 says this, but in the next verse says as long as the slave lives, no punishment for the owner.
    Except the slave is freed and the owner owes a debt for the "sake of the tooth" as Deuteronomy puts it. This verse simply means the master cannot be confined to jail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    This is a person who is property.
    Neither I, contemporary commentaries, not classical Jewish commentaries read it the same way you do. The Bible is very explicit when it refers to people in their status as humans or creations of God. We don't get that same language here. We don't get the appeal to soul or breath or life. We get words tied with labor or ability to do labor. We get references to the "body" (the earthly vessel, not the person) and to their 'abad, their service to others.

    We get punishments for damaging a person, and requirements to support a disabled person. We get fines if someone is permanently injured (and universal manumission). We also get literally dozens of ways to obtain freedom at the expense of the master, some as easy as running away.

    That isn't a system of chattel slavery, or plantations, or Roman like slavery. It sounds far closer to indentured servitude, like when you have the Army pay for your college. Perhaps a bit closer to the 70s, when Sergeants could slap you around a bit, but still, nothing like the plantation system or the Belgian Congo.

    I'm certainly open to sources that are able to show how this was more like those systems, or more like the image conjured by the use of the word slave today, but it would need to be more than just an inference. We would need some kind of source or exploration of the text that shows that that is what it is talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Please tell me, is what is advocated about slaves in the bible applicable to the treatment of people today? Why or why not?
    Well we do a lot of it in the US currently. Labor contracts with specific performance clauses, tuition assistance with guaranteed work, the entire DoD scholarship program, all of these fit into these systems of laws. Europe is even a bit closer with its migratory worker provisions (many workers can be jailed if they don't work for the company that sponsored them).

    But to think they apply one to one is to miss the point of the New Testament, right? It was exactly that point that drove the Abolitionist movement in England and the US. That was a religious movement arguing that we weren't treating Africans as was required by the Old and New Testaments. It was appeal to many of these same verses that ended the slave trade, and which are in the debates on the Thirteenth Amendment.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That's exactly the point. The immoral act of lying (I think we can all agree that lying isn't morally neutral) leads to moral result, because it is the least immoral act available to you in that instance.
    I do not agree that in this case, the act of lying was immoral at all. Again, I see it more as the difference between killing and murder. A police officer could kill somebody in the course of their job and it not be murder.

    ---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post




    This exact verse I have covered extensively with future. I'll try to provide a quick synopsis on the verse's meaning:

    From post 23:
    [indent]The Verses mentioned allow for lifetime ownership, they do not mandate it. Hence the term “May.” May means a conditional statement. In this case all of the following conditions must be met;
    Who said anything about "mandating it". For the sake of this conversation I am fine to leave it at "may" or "allows" or "is ok" etc, for lifetime ownership.
    So we agree a slave can be owned for life

    ---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    )

    From post 29:
    [indent]Why don’t we look at that verse set in the actual Hebrew, and I think we can see that you are interpreting the KJV (extremely early modern English) in an incorrect manner.

    25:46 וְהִתְנַחֲלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו לֹא־תִרְדֶּה בֹו בְּפָֽרֶךְ׃ ס
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/.../t_conc_115046

    And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
    ibid.
    The specific words relevant to our argument are “inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen…” You’ll notice the words “them for” are italicized, meaning they are inferred, but not present in the original text due to the different structure of Hebrew.
    The relevant Hebrew words are: yarash, 'achuzzah, `abad.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H3423&t=KJV
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...ngs=H272&t=KJV
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H5647&t=KJV

    Literally this is translated as “take possession through inheritance (yarash) of the possession (‘achuzzah) that is their labor (‘abad). The verse never refers to them as a specific person, that only occurs in the English translation to clarify something that isn’t clear in English, but is obvious in Hebrew. ‘abad, used several times in this chapter refers to the work done by another or their status as doing work, not their existence as people or their essence as a person.

    Thus we have no basis in this verse to say that it is implying their bodies, their souls, or their humanity is being inherited, only their ownership of their labor.

    So a person's "labor" can be owned and inherited. Yet the "labor" sounds like it could utilized at any time 24/7 under penalty of harsh punishment. A semantical difference between "property" and "labor" in this case with no affect on my point

    ---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    As for the idea that you haven't found a way for them to be free, let me point you to my last post:
    I believe I said if a person was "born" into slavery I haven't found a way for them to go ever free

    ---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except the slave is freed and the owner owes a debt for the "sake of the tooth" as Deuteronomy puts it. This verse simply means the master cannot be confined to jail.

    Wasn't there something (exodus 21:20) in there about if you hit you a slave (male/female) with a rod and they die he will be punished, but if sometime later they still live no punishment as the slave is just "labor" (as you put it).

    ---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Neither I, contemporary commentaries, not classical Jewish commentaries read it the same way you do. The Bible is very explicit when it refers to people in their status as humans or creations of God. We don't get that same language here. We don't get the appeal to soul or breath or life. We get words tied with labor or ability to do labor. We get references to the "body" (the earthly vessel, not the person) and to their 'abad, their service to others.

    We get punishments for damaging a person, and requirements to support a disabled person. We get fines if someone is permanently injured (and universal manumission). We also get literally dozens of ways to obtain freedom at the expense of the master, some as easy as running away.
    Ok, I get it now. A person isn't property, but they can't come/go as they please, nor do things a free person can, and they can have their "labor" owned for life. They can be punished (with a rod for instance) and as long as they aren't killed or maimed, the "owner" fine. If they are maimed (like lose an eye) they are set "free".
    I concede the property point '

    ---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well we do a lot of it in the US currently. Labor contracts with specific performance clauses, tuition assistance with guaranteed work, the entire DoD scholarship program, all of these fit into these systems of laws. Europe is even a bit closer with its migratory worker provisions (many workers can be jailed if they don't work for the company that sponsored them).

    Once again, I agreed that there are different types of slavery. I haven't been referring to voluntary, "contracted" etc. My points only concern forced slavery. Let us stay focused on this category please.

  19. #36
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I do not agree that in this case, the act of lying was immoral at all. Again, I see it more as the difference between killing and murder. A police officer could kill somebody in the course of their job and it not be murder.
    Well, I would imagine that Deontologists would agree that the action is not morally problematic because of the circumstances, but that that doesn't make the underlying action moral. And all of this assumes some kind of objective moral code. You can see why ethics was a pretty fun class.

    Let's see if we can offer a slightly different scenario to illustrate the actions.

    You're taking a break at a railway office to talk to a friend. As you talk, your hand rests idly on a track switch (that determines which rail the train goes on to). Your friend is droning on about his shopping trip and your mind wanders to the track, where you notice a train coming on the rail you control. You also notice a person tied up on the side track. If you pull the switch your hand rests upon, the train will move to the side track and kill the person.

    So is pulling the switch immoral? Certainly.

    Now let's add one additional piece of info. You also happen to notice the main line has 4 people tied up on it. So not pulling the switch would result in all 4 of their deaths.

    Now is pulling the switch immoral? Probably not.

    In this case you have two immoral options, take no action and let 4 people die or take an action and let 1 person die.

    This is a scenario often presented as a challenge to utilitarian ethical codes by deontologists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Who said anything about "mandating it". For the sake of this conversation I am fine to leave it at "may" or "allows" or "is ok" etc, for lifetime ownership.
    So we agree a slave can be owned for life
    I perhaps misunderstood where you were coming from in this thread. I had assumed you were adopting future's OP, though that seems to have been a poor assumption on my part, sorry.

    My last response quoted sections used earlier in response to future. It was he that brought forward the "mandate" language. I think you correctly point out that that is not the language being offered in the text. Allows for is probably the best substitute, "is ok" applies a moral positive that the text isn't offering and which Jewish scholars reject.

    And to clarify your last sentence, a slave could, in theory, be owned for life. That hedging language is important here because it calls out the kind of ridiculous assumptions one would need to make for it not to be true.

    In order for a slave to be actually in bondage for his/her entire life they would have to:

    Never become disabled through age.
    Never accumulate or otherwise spend the wages they earn and the gifts they are given.
    Never run away, even though they had freedom of movement.
    Or a dozen other actions a slave could take that would require manumission.

    I mean, we need to seriously consider here that in order to be a slave for life, it would require that the slave never escape to a neighbor. That seems a pretty low bar and as such claiming that this was some kind of real "lifetime servitude" clause is pretty ridiculous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    So a person's "labor" can be owned and inherited. Yet the "labor" sounds like it could utilized at any time 24/7 under penalty of harsh punishment. A semantical difference between "property" and "labor" in this case with no affect on my point
    Actually, it couldn't. As I showed earlier, it couldn't be used during the Sabbath or during religious festivals. It couldn't be compelled during travel. It couldn't be so taxing that it caused the slave to flee. It couldn't be beyond the slave's abilities.

    By your definition, I'm a slave to the National Guard, since they can compel my service in an even broader range of scenarios and imprison me if I refuse. The slave couldn't be injured as part of the punishment or he goes free and the master still had to provide him food from his own table, housing of the same lot he lived in, and days off. I'm not sure which is the "harsher" punishment you are implying here.

    I think the difference here is a bit more than just semantics, especially if we are going to argue that the US and Europe have vastly superior moral codes as was done in the OP.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I believe I said if a person was "born" into slavery I haven't found a way for them to go ever free
    I apologize I misread your quote, you are correct that you did say "born." However, all of the conditions I mentioned in my response apply to those born into slavery as well except 32 and 34. A slave born into slavery is still freed on any of the conditions below. There are some additional Talmudic texts that argue that no one can be born into slavery as well, however they weren't universally agreed upon so I didn't include them.

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    2) The owner has not injured the slave.
    3) The slave has not become disabled.
    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).
    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.
    6) A fugitive slave must not be turned over to his master. (Deut. 23:16).
    7) The workload of a slave should never exceed his physical strength, violation of this rule can lead to manumission. (Ecclus. 33:28–29).
    8) A verbal promise of release might not be sufficient, but a court will compel the master to issue a written release if a verbal promise was given. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:3 and Sh. Ar., YD 267:73–74).
    9) A slave is to be released if the master bequeaths him property (Pe'ah 3:8; Git. 8b–9a; Yad, Avadim 7:9; YD 267:57).
    10) A slave is freed automatically by marriage to a freewoman, or by his de facto recognition, in the presence of his master, as a free man such as reading the Torah in public. Git. 39b–40a; Yad, Avadim 8:17; YD 267:70)
    11) Marriage to the master's daughter seems to have been a not infrequent means to emancipation (Pes. 113a).
    12) A slave may not be sold to a non-Jew. Doing so automatically frees the slave and the master will have to pay a fine as high as ten times the slave’s sale rice (as well as being forced to redeem him from the buyer). (Git. 4:6; Git. 44a–45a; Yad, Avadim 8:1; YD 267:80).
    13) A slave who has been jointly owned by two masters and is released by one becomes half-slave half-freeman; the remaining master may also be compelled by the court to release him (Git. 4:5; Yad, Avadim 7:7; YD 267:62–63).
    14) If a master attempts to sell his slave outside Israel and it’s protection, or event to travel outside Israel, the slave can request manumission.
    15) if a man assigns property (of the non-movable type to his slave, the slave becomes ipso facto free.
    16) if the slave is not specifically given to offspring, he is free. If the offspring has died or does not come to claim the slave the slave is freed.
    17) if the slave is joint owned by husband and wife and there is a divorce, if either sets him free, he is free.
    18) if the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given.
    19) if a man and woman divorce and the slave runs to the woman (or man), that woman or man can free him, even if he is the ex’s property.
    20) if the slave was the man’s property, but he gives the slave to his wife when they divorce, the slave cannot be transferred or willed, but is free when she dies.
    21) if a slave is carried off by robbers and then ransomed to someone as a freeman, rather than explicitly sold back as a slave, he is free.
    22) a slave who escapes from prison is a free man and the master can be compelled to create a writ of manumission.
    23) if the master has given up hope of recovering the slave, the slave is freed regardless of how they are ransomed or released or escape.
    24) if a slave woman marries a freeman, she is free. (Jews pass lineage through the female, and thus it was seen as unduly burdensome to create a perpetual slave line and prevented their ability to marry, which is seen as sacrosanct from God).
    25) if a tenth man is needed to make a quorum at the synagogue, the slave is freed for the religious obligation. If the master likewise consecrates his slave, he is free. Similarly, if he declares him common property he is a free man.
    26) a man who gives up hope on a slave from sickness or being lost, or being captured, frees the man.
    27) if a slave marries a free woman in the presence of a master he is freed. Or if the master arranged the marriage.
    28) if a master borrows money from a slave, the slave is freed.
    29) if a man uses his slave as collateral to a heathen, and he defaults the man is free, if the slave escapes from the heathen he is free.
    30) if a man sells his slave while abroad, he becomes free (this is one of the reasons the entire concept died out following the diaspora).
    31) slave has rights to end service
    32) hethen slaves are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free.
    33) general times of freeing the slaves (religious or royal proclamations) apply even to slaves that are travelling. Freeing came during times of victory, atonement, or thanksgiving among others.
    34) if a slave is purchased on condition of a release, the slave has a right to demand release after 4 years.
    35) If the slave escapes the court cannot return him.
    36) ritual ablution emancipates a slave as part of the conversion process. Part of enslavement meant inclusion in ritual and Sabbath. If the slave chose to complete the process and become a Jew, they were automatically manumitted.
    37) a daughter of a slave who wishes to marry a freeman must be freed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Wasn't there something (exodus 21:20) in there about if you hit you a slave (male/female) with a rod and they die he will be punished, but if sometime later they still live no punishment as the slave is just "labor" (as you put it).
    The verses you are referencing are in in Exodus and Deuteronomy. They say that if a master kills a slave within a day, the master will be put to death as any murderer is. If, however, the slave doesn't die within a day, it is 'presumed' the slave didn't die from the beating. Just as with our law codes, a presumption isn't a guarantee. Jewish courts were still obligated to review the case, they just did so with the presumption of innocence in that scenario (just as we do today). So there was no mandate for "no punishment," but rather a mandate for an investigation, which seems relatively reasonable.

    If the slave doesn't die at all, but has a permanent injury, he was freed by the court. The owner was likewise obligated (as I showed in my last post to future) to pay him a debt to compensate for the injury and in some cases to pay a fine to the court.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Ok, I get it now. A person isn't property, but they can't come/go as they please, nor do things a free person can, and they can have their "labor" owned for life. They can be punished (with a rod for instance) and as long as they aren't killed or maimed, the "owner" fine. If they are maimed (like lose an eye) they are set "free".
    I concede the property point '
    This also isn't accurate given what I put forward. Slaves did have the freedom to come and go (unless they were women, though the commentaries point out that this has more to do with the master's obligation to protect the woman than an intentional limit to her freedom). They are free to attend religious services, they cannot be forced to work on holidays or sabbaths. They are free to visit the temple in Jerusalem (and must be given resources to do so).

    Did they have absolute libertine freedom? No.

    Do you? ;-)
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, I would imagine that Deontologists would agree that the action is not morally problematic because of the circumstances, but that that doesn't make the underlying action moral.

    Then you appear to be saying that telling the truth would have been the moral thing to do?

    ---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's see if we can offer a slightly different scenario to illustrate the actions.

    You're taking a break at a railway office to talk to a friend. As you talk, your hand rests idly on a track switch (that determines which rail the train goes on to). Your friend is droning on about his shopping trip and your mind wanders to the track, where you notice a train coming on the rail you control. You also notice a person tied up on the side track. If you pull the switch your hand rests upon, the train will move to the side track and kill the person.

    So is pulling the switch immoral? Certainly.

    Now let's add one additional piece of info. You also happen to notice the main line has 4 people tied up on it. So not pulling the switch would result in all 4 of their deaths.

    Now is pulling the switch immoral? Probably not.

    In this case you have two immoral options, take no action and let 4 people die or take an action and let 1 person die.

    This is a scenario often presented as a challenge to utilitarian ethical codes by deontologists.

    Well, I didn't have the advantage of going to college, but again, I disagree with this scenario. From a "greater good" standpoint, you could make the argument saving four people is "better" than saving one. However, from a moral standpoint, you did not cause these people to be on the tracks. Being a moral agent (not the objective source of morals), I don't think you can decide who lives and dies (of course "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" as the RUSH song goes .

    Since no objective source of morals is available for you to consult (in this situation), you only have your subjective morals to guide you. And as we have learned, subjective morals can be wrong (though it is not necessarily so).

    ---------- Post added at 05:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I perhaps misunderstood where you were coming from in this thread. I had assumed you were adopting future's OP, though that seems to have been a poor assumption on my part, sorry.

    My last response quoted sections used earlier in response to future. It was he that brought forward the "mandate" language. I think you correctly point out that that is not the language being offered in the text. Allows for is probably the best substitute, "is ok" applies a moral positive that the text isn't offering and which Jewish scholars reject.

    And to clarify your last sentence, a slave could, in theory, be owned for life. That hedging language is important here because it calls out the kind of ridiculous assumptions one would need to make for it not to be true.
    And here we agree, awesomeness

    ---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I perhaps misunderstood where you were coming from in this thread. I had assumed you were adopting future's OP, though that seems to have been a poor assumption on my part, sorry.

    I am trying to learn something, nothing more or less. I care who is right quite a bit, but not nearly so much as what the truth actually is. No offense taken and please don't take any of my comments as intentionally insulting. I'm afraid sometimes am too open with my opinions and I hate political correctness. I don't want to come off like an ass though.

    ---------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I apologize I misread your quote, you are correct that you did say "born." However, all of the conditions I mentioned in my response apply to those born into slavery as well except 32 and 34. A slave born into slavery is still freed on any of the conditions below. There are some additional Talmudic texts that argue that no one can be born into slavery as well, however they weren't universally agreed upon so I didn't include them.
    I believe that was about non-Hebrew's that were born of slaves not having a way out....
    Sorry, I will try to get back to that point with clarification. I am tryin to respond to your whole post and I'm almost out of time.

    ---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The verses you are referencing are in in Exodus and Deuteronomy. They say that if a master kills a slave within a day, the master will be put to death as any murderer is. If, however, the slave doesn't die within a day, it is 'presumed' the slave didn't die from the beating. Just as with our law codes, a presumption isn't a guarantee. Jewish courts were still obligated to review the case, they just did so with the presumption of innocence in that scenario (just as we do today). So there was no mandate for "no punishment," but rather a mandate for an investigation, which seems relatively reasonable.

    If the slave doesn't die at all, but has a permanent injury, he was freed by the court. The owner was likewise obligated (as I showed in my last post to future) to pay him a debt to compensate for the injury and in some cases to pay a fine to the court.
    I don't remember bring the court into this conversation. I thought we were discussing what is in the Bible???

    If you can "beat your female slave with a rod" in the first place should be cause for pause. As I read it though, it states, if there is no death or maiming there shall be no punishment for the owner. I am not seeing the "they get to go free, if you beat them with the rod" part of the text?

    ---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This also isn't accurate given what I put forward. Slaves did have the freedom to come and go (unless they were women, though the commentaries point out that this has more to do with the master's obligation to protect the woman than an intentional limit to her freedom). They are free to attend religious services, they cannot be forced to work on holidays or sabbaths. They are free to visit the temple in Jerusalem (and must be given resources to do so).
    Sorry, I took slight "poetic license" with your comments. Just trying to keep a sense of humor
    Though, we agreed close enough on this point to satisfy me.

    ---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Did they have absolute libertine freedom? No.

    Do you? ;-)

    This comment surprised me, coming from you....
    What did I possibly say that relates to "absolute libertine freedom".
    (and none of these people enjoyed even the basic freedoms I do....I really don't get your point on this at all???)

  21. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I want to start off exploring more about what you mean when you say there is a “secular moral code” and how you know what that code is. You indicated that you knew that “we” (who exactly do you mean by that, Americans? All Humans?) have an agreement on this issue because we have a law to that effect. So was there no moral prohibition before the law? If not, how can there have been a moral problem with the Biblical tradition 2000 years prior?
    A secular moral system (it's not simply a code), or also secular ethics, happens when people deal with morality outside of religious traditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Does our contemporary and secular morality consider adultery ok then? There are no laws against it in the US after all.
    I never stated that every single position held within secular morality is enshrined in a law. This is a strawman. In any case, there may be good reasons why there is no law specifically against adultery: the consequences (harm) resulting from adultery do not merit the limiting of one's freedom to choose with whom they engage in consensual intimacy. Also, in divorce cases where one party is proven to have committed adultery, that party is almost worse-off in the divorce proceedings, especially if children are involved. This is one way the law recognizes adultery as being a bad thing/immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What about feeding the homeless? We do have laws against that, has our secular morality determined that to be immoral?
    Another strawman. The laws against feeding homeless do not serve the purpose of preventing anyone from feeding the homeless, they're put in place specifically when/where feeding the homeless would result in some other undesirable outcome which the law is attempting to prevent. Further, the numerous organizations which work to help feed the homeless proves my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Perhaps we could acknowledge there isn’t a one to one relationship between law and morality?
    The point was that our contemporary secular morality considers owning people as property to be immoral, which is evidenced by the fact that contemporary people in many places have worked to establish organizations and laws against it (the 13th amendment comes to mind). As far as a one-to-one relationship goes, if that really is your thing, that is as close as we can get.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And, if so, how do you determine what exactly our “secular moral code” is? It has seemed, both in this thread, and in others, that you (futureboy) just seem to ‘know’ it and expect us to. Imagine I was an alien landing on earth for the first time. How would I know what humanity’s “secular moral code” is? How would I go about evaluating it?
    One can see the secular moral system at work by observing how our legal system attempts to deal with issues and improve on itself, and also by looking at the wide variety of humanist and charitable organizations which are expressions of our secular morality/ethics. Sure, an alien might look at what humans are doing to each other around the world and say we're just absolutely f*cked up, but the things they'd be looking at don't go unopposed, which is the contemporary secular moral system at work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Importantly, why would I think that this particular moral code trumps others? Why would I say it is “more” moral than other moral codes.
    Well, for one, it doesn't condone or mandate owning people as property. But a simple reason would be that the use of secular morality/ethics has greatly increased in its recognition and implementation, and the reason for that is it's continued reliability in producing the desired results. Another is that it's the only one which is actually a system, which means that it can be improved upon as we learn more. Religious moral codes aren't systems but merely moral pronouncements which some claim, without support, are objective truths. Another is that it's actually the closest thing we have to an objective moral system, since it's based on objective observations, while the "objective moral codes" aren't actually objective - only claimed to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I never relied on objective observations in my argument.
    And I didn't say you did. The point I was making was that, since objective morality is technically non-existent and only claimed, we can't rely on it in any way. Therefore we have the next best thing (the best thing, since it actually exists), which is secular morality which uses objective facts and observations as the basis for determining whether something is or isn't moral.
    That seems to be an error in your thinking on this issue.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’m assuming you mean that your determination that “our secular moral code precludes slavery” is based on an objective fact and observation? Ok, what is that observation or fact? That is exactly what my challenge would like you to support.
    As before: "Our secular moral system has determined that owning people as property goes against our goals and values".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Now, as for an objective moral code, I’m a bit surprised you aren’t familiar with the concept given your participation in the other thread. An objective moral code is one where the moral duties and obligations are true, regardless of individual taste or preference. IE “it is wrong to murder babies, even if Steve thinks it is ok.
    Then based on your definition, there is no such thing as an actual objective moral code, since no moral duties or obligations have been demonstrated to be objectively true. We're still just left with moral pronouncements which are claimed to be objective truths without support. So yes, I'm not familiar with any objective moral code - only collections of moral pronouncements which claim to be objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A subjective moral code is one where the statement “it is wrong to murder babies” is true or false depending on the person. It is true for Dave, but false for Steve.
    That's not the moral code we're discussing - please note that I have not referred to any "subjective moral code" in this thread. The secular moral system uses objective facts to determine whether something aligns with the goals set out by the society employing the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise, if you are going to maintain something like “the Bible is not a moral guide” you need to have an objective premise like “it disagrees with this objective, better, moral code” in your argument. Simply arguing that it disagrees with your personal view point isn’t any more compelling than it would be if the argument were reversed.
    Since you have not supported the existence of an objective moral code or why an objective moral code is required, this is nothing more than a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P1) The Bible says A is acceptable. No disagreement here. Your argument is actually that the Bible says A is acceptable not mandatory, that is a much higher burden that you don’t need to bear and, more importantly, not the case.
    This is a misrepresentation of my argument. The OP clearly states "the bible condones and mandates owning people as property", which has been supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P2) A is actually bad (this is an unstated premise in your OP).T his premise is composed of three sub-premises.
    P2a) B is bad according to moral code X. This is unsupported. You’ve made a claim that it is bad according to “our secular moral code” but seem to have backed off how you actually know that is the case. This premise needs to be supported for the conclusion to be correct.
    I've already offered support: the various laws and organizations which oppose owning people as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P2b) Moral code X is superior to the Biblical moral code. No support is offered here at all. This premise establishes which moral code we should accept if your other premises hold. Without it, all we can conclude is that they “differ” not that one is “better” than the other.[/indent]
    See support above. In short: it's the only system which is actually a system and not just a collection of pronouncements, and it is the closest we have to an objective system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P2c) B in moral code X is the same concept as A in the Bible. The last section of this response deals heavily with this premise. I think it is moot if you can’t support the other premises above it, and you’ve offered no such support as of yet for 2b. The nature of our disagreement also depends heavily on 2a, hence I’ve moved that section to the end. There isn’t much profit in pursuing it until you define what you mean and where you get the premise for 2a.
    This is a strawman. Again, we're talking about owning people as property.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is an odd response. It seems to add nothing to the context or meaning of the argument. I clearly didn't mean the words should be ignored, I was simply explaining why they were italicized in my quote, a relatively standard thing to do when quoting material with textual emphasis. I would assume the translator added them to make the Hebrew, Semitic grammar comply with standard English, Indo-European grammar.
    The point is that the text is referring to owning the person and not their labour. This is the meaning which is implied by the text - ownership of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You'll notice that I never said it was a noun
    See here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Literally this is translated as “take possession through inheritance (yarash) of the possession (‘achuzzah) that is their labor (‘abad)
    With "the possession that is their labour", the "their labour" part is a noun with a possessive pronoun attached. You are interpreting 'abad as a noun, which it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your statement, "you can't own a noun" is problematic for two reasons. The first is that it is simply incorrect, the second is that it, again, relies on your application of indo-european grammar to a semitic languge. Rather than walk you through the vast, vast sources on this, I'll simply ask you to support or retract that a verb cannot have an ownership attachment in Biblical Hebrew.
    I think you misspoke there - I never said "you can't own a noun". In any case, the point you missed/avoided completely was that since Lev.25:45 clearly refers people being possessions, your misinterpretation of 'abad fails to support that the use of it in Lev.25:46 is mandating ownership of labour and not people as property. But even if it did, that would fail to bring into question the other verses which clearly condone and mandate the treatment of people as property (being allowed to buy/sell/inherit them as possessions, and beat them to death).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    While we wait for that, I'll point out that even in English your point is simply incorrect. We create nouns out of verbs all the time in English by implying ownership. By simply noting the ownership of the activity we often create a noun from a verb. That is the literal origin of the noun "business." It refers to the activity or profession of someone, but became a noun as that profession became more associated with independent companies and eventually corporations. We can list a relatively long set of these verb to noun transitions with relative ease. Race, Hunt, Logging, Trade, etc. We also do this when adding the term "the" before a verb. I'm "in the running" or "in the know." etc.
    This would make sense if you could provide a single reference where 'abad was used in Hebrew to mean "labour" as a noun. In any case, again, it fails to refute the fact that Lev. 25:45 clearly refers to people as possessions, a point you seem to have conveniently avoided.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Returning to the text at hand, the verb's proper definition fits my explanation more closely than yours.
    Nope, Lev. 25:45 clearly indicates people are the possessions and makes no mention of labour whatsoever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In fact, your take would seem to indicate that the Bible is incorrectly asserting ownership of a verb (which you believe to be incorrect)
    Nope, you are again misrepresenting my point, which was that 'abad in Lev. 25:46 doesn't mean the labour is owned and not the people, because Lev. 25:45 clearly refers to people as possessions. I also already pointed out that this is further backed-up by the fact that "them" (people) was inferred in translations Lev. 25:46, which further supports that people is what is being taken as a possession as clearly indicated in Lev. 25:45. Further, how do you know that 'abad being used as a noun from its original verb form isn't supposed to mean "possession of labourers" instead of "possession of labour"? This definitely fits with all current interpretations, especially with Lev. 25:45 specifically referring to the people who will be the labourers (and the possessions).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather, it is noting that the service (labor) done for others is a possession through inheritance. If the verse was, as you state, referring back to the object of the last verse (something btw not done in biblical Hebrew, nor English until the 1200s) then the word 'achuzzah would not be present.
    Please support this claim. You seem to find it easy to make a claim about the use of the Hebrew language being similar to English, but at the same time ask me to support how biblical Hebrew was used. Are you now saying that "them" being inferred in translations Lev. 25:46 is actually the evil translators' work?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a clarifying word in this context nothing that the following word, 'abad is a possession. It makes no sense, and rather should have been the pronoun 'el-leh. The lack of th at pronoun clearly indicates that no such "call back" was being offered. Rather, the possession in question is the word in position three, 'abad, which fits the more appropriate Hebrew grammar structure.
    This is all very interesting, but you'll forgive me if I don't accept your interpretation over the numerous interpretations and translations which show Lev. 25:45-46 as including clear references to people being possessions. They all translate theses verse as "and they shall be your possession (KJV)" and "You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves (NASB)", and I'm unable to find even a single reference which supports your interpretation. There must be a reason for this. Could you provide at least one reference from a contemporary scholar of biblical Hebrew that says these verses say otherwise and have been misinterpreted as you appear to claim? Otherwise, I'll continue to reference the bible as it has been translated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Regardless, this is not my claim to support. I used that term as a counter to illustrate your initial claim, one that you have not supported, which is that the Bible mandates the ownership of people as beings. I'll also note that I challenged you to support that premise in my last post with no effect. Your options here are to officially support or to retract that claim. Again, please support that the verse is referring to the slaves personhood rather than the labor or some other criteria.
    All interpretations/translations hold that these verses are referring to people owned as property. Not one single interpretation save yours argues otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    Obviously this is the case, he can’t be a slave for life if he has been manumitted.
    This is not dependent on any biblical position, and instead only on the desire of the owner, so it is not a biblical condition against the biblical mandating of owning people as property for ever.

    Regarding your references: Nothing from the Talmud or its scholars is relevant to whether the bible can be seriously considered as a moral guide if it condones and mandates slavery. We're talking about Christians, not Jews, using the christian bible, not the Talmud or Torah, as a moral guide. They have to live with the bible as it is available to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) The owner has not injured the slave.
    • Exodus 21:26,27, any owner that does permanent damage to their slave must set the slave free because of the damage.
    Your statement #1 is incorrect. It's not "if the owner has not injured the slave." It's "if the owner has not permanently injured the slave's eyes or teeth."
    Therefore, what the bible mandates is that the owner is allowed to beat his slave, and if the injury is not permanent to the eyes or teeth, the slave remains the owner's posession. Please confirm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).
    • In Leviticus 25, a slave is guaranteed his own property and earnings, and is able to redeem himself, or be redeemed by his family.
    Please indicate the specific verses where this is explained.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.
    • Deut 24 requires the payment of wages and allows slaves to collect left over crops (those not collected on the first pass, the “gleanings”) for their own use.
    • II Sam. 9:10; 16:4; 19:18, 30; cf. I Sam. 9:8 Slaves owning property and receiving wages.
    • Value of slave labor: Deut 15:18 implies, the work of household slave might be valued at twice the value of a hired man; regardless, Lev 25:40 specifies that the work of the household slave cannot be valued at less than that.
    There is nothing here that indicates that the slave's wages can purchase their freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’ll add to the above that there are a host of other conditions that require manumission, again, distinguishing this institution from chattel slavery.
    Your attempts to shift focus onto chattel slavery are strawmen. The OP is about owning people as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    • A fugitive slave must not be turned over to his master. (Deut. 23:16).
    • Ben Sira adds: "If thou treat him ill and he proceeds to run away, in what way shalt thou find him?" IE mistreatment is the presumed reason for a slave escaping, thus his return to his master is forbidden. (Ecclus. 33:31).
    This has little weight considering the owner is allowed to beat their slave to death. Also, this verse is talking about the specific case when the owner has only one slave.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    • The workload of a slave should never exceed his physical strength, violation of this rule can lead to manumission. (Ecclus. 33:28–29).
    This passage doesn't mention manumission at all. Incidentally, Ecclus. 33 has these other gems:
    "Set your slave to work, and you will find rest; leave his hands idle, and he will seek liberty." Apparently liberty is a bad thing.
    "Yoke and thong will bow the neck, and for a wicked slave there are racks and tortures." Apparently torturing slaves is okay.
    "Set him to work, as is fitting for him, and if he does not obey, make his chains heavy." Nice punishment.
    You see, as long as the bible has passages like these and specific mandates on how to buy/sell/inherit/treat people as property (or chattel), well, you get the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    When asked what reference you used to determine that “our secular moral system…” you cite existing law and organizations. Those laws and organizations are opposed to chattel slavery, not to indentured servitude for example. Thus clarifying the differences is relevant to your argument.
    As long as the bible refers to people as possessions, this is an irrelevant strawman. We're talking about owning people as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If the type of work relationship being described in the OT
    You mean the relationship where people are treated as property which the owners are allowed to own people as property forever, beat them to death, sell to others as property, and inherit as property? That's not a work relationship - that's slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The value of a person absent their output is the definition of esoteric. The value of labor is tangible and measurable, the value of a person as a person, absent that labor is philosophical. The verse here is talking about the loss to the master of the slave’s value in monetary terms. The only monetary loss of a slave’s death is value he provides.
    This is completely irrelevant. The fact is that the verse refers to the person, and not the labour in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Regardless, all you’ve done here is reassert your position without supporting it with evidence. Please support or retract that the verse is referring to the slaves personhood rather than the labor or some other criteria.
    The evidence is how the text is represented: "he is his labour". No mention of labour at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is inappropriate of your to shift the burden in this manner. The claim was made by you in post 28 and needs to be either supported or retracted.
    I think you might mean a different post, since #28 has nothing to do with this. In any case, the support has been provided: the text refers to the person, not the labour he does. Now, to repeat, you are the person who originally claimed that it's referring to the person's labour. Please support your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Now your quote comes from clarification e, referring specifically to Psalms which makes it less applicable given that it was written nearly a thousand years later. However, even in the section you mention what do the Princes consume? Is it the people? No, it is products of their work, their wealth. IE the product of their labor.
    Please support where it says that the princes consume work or labour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Thank you, we agree the purpose, as I stated, was to preserve them from death.
    You have twisted my statement - and in the most dishonest way, too, thanks. Here it is again: "Yes, so that they could be taken as property and enslaved. Please support that the purpose was otherwise."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because you are conflating a whole host of relationships here into one, overly broad category. Some forms of this are bad (chattel slavery in the American South), but some have a useful place in different societies, including ours, like indentured servitude or labor contracts.
    Okay, so you say "chattel slavery" is immoral. How did you determine this to be the case?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’m not avoiding the questions, I’m rejecting what seems to be an attempt to shift the burden.
    Please explain how asking you what you think/believe is burden shifting? You had no problem expressing your opposition to "chattel slavery", so what's the problem?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    My last response quoted sections used earlier in response to future. It was he that brought forward the "mandate" language. I think you correctly point out that that is not the language being offered in the text. Allows for is probably the best substitute
    I not only brought forward the language, it's in the OP. From my post #26:
    To “allow” or give authority to do something is literally the definition of “mandate” (https://www.google.com/search?q=mandate). Therefore it is supported that the bible mandates owning people as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And to clarify your last sentence, a slave could, in theory, be owned for life. That hedging language is important here because it calls out the kind of ridiculous assumptions one would need to make for it not to be true.
    Thank you for confirming that the bible mandates owning people as property for life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If, however, the slave doesn't die within a day, it is 'presumed' the slave didn't die from the beating. Jewish courts were still obligated to review the case, they just did so with the presumption of innocence in that scenario (just as we do today).
    Please support these claims.

  22. #39
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Then you appear to be saying that telling the truth would have been the moral thing to do?
    Not exactly, I was saying that a deontologist or someone who holds a deontological moral code (IE rules not outcome based) would hold that lying is wrong (the rule). As is letting a murderer murder someone (another rule). Their argument would be that violating the first rule, even though immoral (since you aren’t supposed to break moral rules), is the right thing to do because it is the least immoral option to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Well, I didn't have the advantage of going to college, but again, I disagree with this scenario. From a "greater good" standpoint, you could make the argument saving four people is "better" than saving one. However, from a moral standpoint, you did not cause these people to be on the tracks. Being a moral agent (not the objective source of morals), I don't think you can decide who lives and dies (of course "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" as the RUSH song goes .
    This scenario is designed to give trouble to the other great set of moral codes, utilitarianism (outcome rather than rule based). So for someone who subscribed to a utilitarian system, the “greater good” is the moral stand point.

    You certainly aren’t responsible for them being on their tracks, so you aren’t the ultimate cause of their deaths. But you are in the chain of actions that lead to their deaths right? (If a man was standing on a railroad track next to you and you didn’t pull him to safety, we generally wouldn’t just give you a free pass).


    Perhaps though neither example is very compelling because you aren’t a deontologist or a utilitarian? It might be helpful for me to understand your views on a moral code briefly to better address how this might happen in your mind. I’m not trying to shift a burden, just understand my audience a bit better.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I believe that was about non-Hebrew's that were born of slaves not having a way out....
    Sorry, I will try to get back to that point with clarification. I am tryin to respond to your whole post and I'm almost out of time.
    No worries, but just to clarify my point, all of the 33 or so examples I gave applied to non-hebrews born in to slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I don't remember bring the court into this conversation. I thought we were discussing what is in the Bible???

    If you can "beat your female slave with a rod" in the first place should be cause for pause. As I read it though, it states, if there is no death or maiming there shall be no punishment for the owner. I am not seeing the "they get to go free, if you beat them with the rod" part of the text?
    We are discussing the Old Testament in particular, which is establishing the laws and rules of Israel. It sets up law courts and tribunals to adjudicate disputes or claims arising under biblical law. If, for example, I was a non-Hebrew slave and you had me pull a heavy cart, I had the right to appeal to a Rabbinical Court for redress under the law established in the Torah.

    Returning to our quoted section. As I note with Future below, beating a slave with a rod is specifically reserved for situations where the slave is “wicked,” IE where a slave has done evil things, not just sloth or idleness. (see Ecclus 33). To clarify your reading a bit, if there is no permanent injury, there was no punishment for the owner. One of the problems with that from an owner’s perspective is that the Talmudic law lists a relatively wide range of conditions as qualifying (and states that the list isn’t exhaustive). So for example any contusion would qualify (since contusions blemish the skin). It is pretty hard to “beat them with a rod” and not leave a contusion of any sort, which would limit the practical punishment to something less than American public schools in the 1970s.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    This comment surprised me, coming from you....
    What did I possibly say that relates to "absolute libertine freedom".
    (and none of these people enjoyed even the basic freedoms I do....I really don't get your point on this at all???)
    This was my own poetic license. You are correct that you did not say absolute libertine freedom, it was a rhetorical flourish on my part. Rather, I was pointing out that I think you are overly minimizing the difference and the level of liberty bondmen had in Ancient Israel. They could, in fact, come and go as they please as long as they were at work during daylight. They had holidays and Sabbaths off. They had guaranteed wages and guaranteed food and housing quality. They had access to the court system and could sue their master for redress. Those are rights no other slave system in the world had. In fact, they are better rights than virtually any human being on the planet enjoyed outside of Roman citizens until the mid 18th Century.

    It certainly was not an equal status of say, an American citizen today, but we need to be careful where we put it after making that point.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    A secular moral system (it's not simply a code), or also secular ethics, happens when people deal with morality outside of religious traditions.
    Well that explains the word secular obviously, but it doesn’t really offer any insight into what you mean by the term. What “people?” Two people? A nation-state? All of humanity?

    And in what realm or vehicle do they create that system or code? You seem to indicate it was the law. If so, does that mean there was no prohibition before the law? IE it wasn’t immoral before the law was passed?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I never stated that every single position held within secular morality is enshrined in a law.
    Ok, then how do we have access to our secular moral system aside from the law?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Another strawman. The laws against feeding homeless do not serve the purpose of preventing anyone from feeding the homeless, they're put in place specifically when/where feeding the homeless would result in some other undesirable outcome which the law is attempting to prevent.
    So, to review, the law does not contain all elements of the moral system nor does the law only contain elements from the moral system. This seems to be at odds with your support earlier.

    In what sense then, does the law represent an insight into our secular moral system? How do we know which laws are from the moral system and which ones aren’t? How do we determine what is immoral in the parts of the system not represented by the law?
    Quote Originally Posted by future
    which is evidenced by the fact that contemporary people in many places have worked to establish organizations and laws against it
    We know it violates the system because a lot of people say it does? http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Sure, an alien might look at what humans are doing to each other around the world and say we're just absolutely f*cked up, but the things they'd be looking at don't go unopposed, which is the contemporary secular moral system at work.
    Likewise though, that opposition is often opposed. There are secular groups opposing abortion, gay marriage, immigration, trade, taxes, intervention, non-intervention, proliferation, pacifism, etc. The presence of opposition is hardly a good measure of what is or is not part of a secular moral system. It only measures that we don’t agree on what is moral and what isn’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    But a simple reason would be that the use of secular morality/ethics has greatly increased in its recognition and implementation, and the reason for that is it's continued reliability in producing the desired results…Another is that it's actually the closest thing we have to an objective moral system, since it's based on objective observations
    Please support or retract these claims. Challenge to support a claim.

    1) That the secular moral system has greatly increased in its recognition an implementation. You would need specific data to support this claim showing that a larger set of people now support a specific moral code/system than have done previously.
    2) And that whatever this moral code/system is, it is based on objective observations (it might help to define that term, since observations are, by definition, subjective).

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    As before: "Our secular moral system has determined that owning people as property goes against our goals and values".
    That is just a claim, not an objective fact or “objective observation.” Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract. What are the objective facts that led to that determination?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Then based on your definition, there is no such thing as an actual objective moral code, since no moral duties or obligations have been demonstrated to be objectively true.
    Careful here, you are confusing people’s acceptance of a fact with whether it is a fact. The earth revolved around the sun even when no one thought it did. Because you don’t accept that a certain moral code is valid isn’t proof that it isn’t.

    You also conflate its objectivity with your warrant to accept it here. Take this statement:

    “The Earth is flat.”

    It is an objective statement. It is wrong, but it is still objective.

    “The universe is 15.4B years old.”

    Again, objective. It might be right, we are still debating it. No one has “demonstrated it to be objectively true.” But that doesn’t mean no objective statements on the age of the universe exist, right?

    Likewise, “thou shall not steal” is an objective moral code in the context of the Old Testament because it is wrong regardless of who it applies to. It does not rely on human acceptance or not for its truth value. You might think it is wrong, sure, but that doesn’t make it a subjective statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Since you have not supported the existence of an objective moral code or why an objective moral code is required, this is nothing more than a strawman.
    Given that you claim that the “secular moral code” is objective, there isn’t really a need to worry about this clause. You would just need to demonstrate that it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I've already offered support: the various laws and organizations which oppose owning people as property.
    Except, you just stated that the laws give us no real insight into our moral code because they a) don’t contain the whole moral code and b) contain laws not coming from the moral code. The latter argument (organizations) is simply an appeal to popularity fallacy.

    So again, how do we know, in an objective sense that it violates “our” (also please define who “our” represents) secular moral code?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    See support above. In short: it's the only system which is actually a system and not just a collection of pronouncements, and it is the closest we have to an objective system.
    Again, you conflate warrant with structure here. You’ve offered no support that the system (which so far is just a set of pronouncements too, “x is wrong”) is objective. What happens if a society changes its mind? What happens if another society disagrees? (Hint, those make the system subjective by its nature).

    And even if we were to accept it as objective, that doesn’t answer the fundamental objection here. How do we know it is better? Eugenics was a pretty objective system as well, it doesn’t make it better, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is a strawman. Again, we're talking about owning people as property.
    No, it is a point of disagreement. I think you need to review that term, you seem to use it incorrectly quite often.

    You have not offered any support that the Bible supports owning a person as property. I’ve offered support that it is labor that is owned, because the fundamental essence of something (like land) cannot be owned by anyone other than God (Lev. 25). I’ve offered several Talmudic discussion on that specific point. You’ve offered nothing that argues that the person specifically is owned.



    I moved this quote up because it seems to be a pretty fundamental misunderstanding on your part that might help clarify the distinctions and why they are being made.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Your attempts to shift focus onto chattel slavery are strawmen. The OP is about owning people as property.
    Wait, do you know what chattel slavery means? Chattel slavery is the version of slavery where a slave is owned as a human being in perpetuity. https://www.reference.com/history/ch...59d71beba2ca56

    This is different than other forms of “slavery” including debt servitude, penal servitude, contracted labor, etc.

    Hopefully, it will make a little bit of more sense why I’m drawing the distinction I am (even if you don’t agree with it). Chattel Slavery, the type of slavery we have outlawed in the US is a different concept than debt servitude, penal servitude, contracted labor, etc.



    Quote Originally Posted by future
    With "the possession that is their labour", the "their labour" part is a noun with a possessive pronoun attached. You are interpreting 'abad as a noun, which it is not.
    By this reasoning no one should ever be able to say “their labor” because we too use that term as a verb. Except..when we use it as a noun by making it the object of a sentence. Which is why your understanding of a specific word, absent the grammar, is incorrect here. You fail to understand how the Hebrew is being composed, and how word order matters in Hebrew. But hey, I’m sure all the links on Hebrew grammar and commentaries are wrong, and that you got it right.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    In any case, the point you missed/avoided completely was that since Lev.25:45 clearly refers people being possessions, your misinterpretation of 'abad fails to support that the use of it in Lev.25:46 is mandating ownership of labour and not people as property.
    This is simply reasserting the claim you made originally with no defense. It is, as many debaters here are fond of saying, a “nu-uh” response. You offer no direct support for your claim that the Hebrew structure mandates that reading. Can you offer any outside support outside from your plain text reading?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This would make sense if you could provide a single reference where 'abad was used in Hebrew to mean "labour" as a noun.
    Do you mean besides when the translators use the term to mean “worshiper?” And “servant?”

    Now therefore call unto me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests; let none be wanting: for I have a great sacrifice to do to Baal; whosoever shall be wanting, he shall not live. But Jehu did it in subtilty, to the intent that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal.
    -2 Kings 10:19
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2ki/10/19/s_323019


    And Jehu sent through all Israel: and all the worshippers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left that came not. And they came into the house of Baal; and the house of Baal was full from one end to another.
    And he said unto him that was over the vestry, Bring forth vestments for all the worshippers of Baal. And he brought them forth vestments.
    And Jehu went, and Jehonadab the son of Rechab, into the house of Baal, and said unto the worshippers of Baal, Search, and look that there be here with you none of the servants of the LORD, but the worshippers of Baal only.
    -2 Kings 10:21-23
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2ki/10/21/s_323021


    And he saw that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute.
    -Gen 49:15
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/49/15/s_49015


    And when the servants of Hadarezer saw that they were put to the worse before Israel, they made peace with David, and became his servants: neither would the Syrians help the children of Ammon any more.
    -1 Chronicles 19:19
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1ch/19/19/s_357019


    For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
    -Zec 2:9
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/zec/2/9/s_913009


    And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.
    -Jer 27:6
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jer/27/6/s_772006


    Be strong, and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you: quit yourselves like men, and fight.
    -1 Samuel 4:9
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1sa/4/9/s_240009


    If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us.
    -1 Samuel 17:9
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1sa/17/9/s_253009


    But take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law, which Moses the servant of the LORD charged you, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.
    -Joshua 22:5
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/.../t_conc_209005


    And Pharaoh's servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?
    -Exodus 10:7
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/...7/t_conc_60007


    Or occasionally referring to the service (a noun) in an event:


    Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work;
    -Jer 22:13
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jer/22/13/s_767013


    And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month.
    -Exodus 13:5
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/exo/13/5/s_63005


    And after that shall the Levites go in to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation: and thou shalt cleanse them, and offer them for an offering.
    -Numbers 8:15
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/num/8/15/s_125015



    Or when the Bible uses the term to refer to someone’s labor?

    Ezekial 29:20: “I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD. https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/eze/29/20/s_831020


    How about:


    Gen 30:26: Give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served thee, and let me go: for thou knowest my service which I have done thee. https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/...6/t_conc_30026



    I think the point missed initially that gave you the trouble was that you saw the link for the “Root Form” of the word without explanation of what that meant. Root words in Hebrew (as in English) can become verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc. depending on what other prefixes and suffixes we add to them.


    In the text we were looking at, Strong’s was pointing out the root of the word was ‘abad, not that the word, in its entirety was ‘abad.

    In the verse under discussion, specific word used was,

    תַּעֲבֹדוּ

    This word has the possessive, plural form of: abodeh. Abodeh is the root abad with a definitive article in front of it. Definitive articles in front of verbs both in English and Hebrew make them nouns. The business, the hunt, the service, etc.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H5656&t=KJV

    You can see that with a variety of prefixes and suffixes that ‘abad fills in as verb, noun, and adjective.
    http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strong...n&isindex=5647

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Please support this claim. You seem to find it easy to make a claim about the use of the Hebrew language being similar to English, but at the same time ask me to support how biblical Hebrew was used.
    I already supported it in post 32. Again, look at your own argument here for the incoherence. You both state that one “can’t own a verb” and then say the most logical translation of the verse is that it means they are owning the verb (to serve). In order to justify this incoherence you argue that the writer is referring back to the previous sentence, which you offer no evidence or reasoning for.

    Rather, it makes far more sense given the Hebrew word order that the object (‘abad) of the verb is the labor being done, not the person. As I pointed out there is no ‘el-leh pronoun, a requirement in Hebrew if you are calling back to a noun from an earlier part of the sentence (el-leh is specifically required when referring back to a person).

    We can further add to it the explanation from the Talmud I linked in my last response to you noting that bondmen were in the legal category of “non-movables” like land. That you can’t own the land, but only the products of the land. This further clarifies why ‘achuzzah is present rather than el-leh because it is the possession (‘achuzzah] that is being owned, not the person (el-leh) just as it is used in other sections of the Bible to refer to the products of the land or of labor rather than the land itself or the laborers..

    As for support, I linked the terms and explained them in text, is there a specific difficulty you are having?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is all very interesting, but you'll forgive me if I don't accept your interpretation over the numerous interpretations and translations
    That is an interesting way to phrase it. What you are essentially saying is that you don’t take my explanation, nor the explanation of several commentators, nor the interpretation by the Talmud (the definitive book on Jewish interpretation of the Torah), rather you only accept your own, personal, plain text reading.

    Perhaps, it is not all of us (who all seem to agree) that are wrong in our reading, but your reading that is aberrant?

    Perhaps it isn’t future that is reading it correctly, but the hundreds of respected Jewish scholars that participated in the Talmud?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    All interpretations/translations hold that these verses are referring to people owned as property. Not one single interpretation save yours argues otherwise.
    Ahh, careful. What you mean is, “future’s reading of all the translations.” You are simply incorrect about the interpretations as I’ve already shown in the links to Biblical Commentaries and Talmudic passages earlier.

    Perhaps you could support or retract this statement? Challenge to support a claim. That, “all interpretations hold that the verse is referring to the people as human beings as owned property?” All is quite a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is not dependent on any biblical position, and instead only on the desire of the owner, so it is not a biblical condition against the biblical mandating of owning people as property for ever.
    Actually, you are incorrect here. The Bible allows for manumission, which is the point. Plenty of slave systems, including in places in the American South or Rome had no such provisions. If a master freed a slave he was only free as long as he wasn’t caught by someone else. That the Bible allows the master to free the slave is the point.

    Regardless, you seem to be conceding that the point was supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Regarding your references: Nothing from the Talmud or its scholars is relevant to whether the bible can be seriously considered as a moral guide if it condones and mandates slavery. We're talking about Christians, not Jews, using the christian bible, not the Talmud or Torah, as a moral guide. They have to live with the bible as it is available to them.
    Moving the goal post fallacy. First, you have no reason or authority to limit Christian use of the Talmud to understand verses in the Old Testament. Christian scholars have often cited and referenced the Talmud to understand Jewish thinking and context.

    Second, that we are only referring to Christians is your new invention. You put no such distinction in the OP or at any point up until this evidence was presented. It is disingenuous to try to limit the field of evidence because it doesn’t like what you are saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Your statement #1 is incorrect. It's not "if the owner has not injured the slave." It's "if the owner has not permanently injured the slave's eyes or teeth."
    Therefore, what the bible mandates is that the owner is allowed to beat his slave, and if the injury is not permanent to the eyes or teeth, the slave remains the owner's posession. Please confirm.
    Congrats on the Cherry Picking fallacy. You’ll note that in several places I’ve cited the Talmud as noting that almost any damage done to the body, including abrasions, can count as permanent damage. I’m more than happy to change it to say “permanent injury” if you will concede that that clause in the context of the verse includes everything down to abrasions as supported. Agreed?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Please indicate the specific verses where this is explained.
    25:6, the products of the land are for you to own, including servants (note the same Hebrew word used here as slave elsewhere)

    Note in 25:23-24 the usage of the term possession in relation to ownership of land as noted in my earlier argument.

    25:48, 49 note the right of redemption. Before you get up in arms about this applying to Israelites, you should read through the original Talmudic support. KID 22b, GIT 45a, and GIT 41B all note that these specific verses also apply to non-Hebrew slaves as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Future
    There is nothing here that indicates that the slave's wages can purchase their freedom.
    So you’ll concede that a slave can be redeemed by a price, and that a slave can earn wages, but not that a slave can use those wages to be redeemed? That is a pretty silly line in the sand to draw, especially given the clear Talmudic references to slaves being freed in this way from times going back to Ancient Israel.

    Sorry, the Talmud is explicitly clear on this point, and given the manumission options found elsewhere you’ll have to offer some kind of evidence that this isn’t the case for this objection to stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This has little weight considering the owner is allowed to beat their slave to death. Also, this verse is talking about the specific case when the owner has only one slave.
    First, I’ve already shown that you are incorrect in your assumption that a master could beat a slave to death, note my response to Belthazor on that subject:
    The verses you are referencing are in in Exodus and Deuteronomy. They say that if a master kills a slave within a day, the master will be put to death as any murderer is. If, however, the slave doesn't die within a day, it is 'presumed' the slave didn't die from the beating. Just as with our law codes, a presumption isn't a guarantee. Jewish courts were still obligated to review the case, they just did so with the presumption of innocence in that scenario (just as we do today). So there was no mandate for "no punishment," but rather a mandate for an investigation, which seems relatively reasonable.

    If the slave doesn't die at all, but has a permanent injury, he was freed by the court. The owner was likewise obligated (as I showed in my last post to future) to pay him a debt to compensate for the injury and in some cases to pay a fine to the court.


    Second, Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that this verse is specifically referring to only the case where a master has one slave.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This passage doesn't mention manumission at all. Incidentally, Ecclus. 33 has these other gems:
    "Set your slave to work, and you will find rest; leave his hands idle, and he will seek liberty." Apparently liberty is a bad thing.
    Let’s actually read this section in its entirety:
    25 Fodder, a rod, and burdens for donkeys;
    bread, discipline,
    and work for household slaves.
    26 Set them to work with discipline,
    and you will have leisure;
    let their hands be idle,
    and they will seek freedom.
    27 A yoke and a strap will bend a neck,
    and there are racks and tortures
    for a wicked household slave.
    28 Put them to work so that they aren’t idle,
    29 because idleness teaches many evils.
    30 Set them to work, as is proper for them,
    and if they don’t obey,
    make their shackles heavy.
    Don’t overburden a person
    made of flesh,
    and don’t do anything
    without exercising good judgment.
    31 If you have household slaves,
    treat them like yourself,
    because you purchased them with blood.
    If you have household slaves,
    treat them like siblings,
    because you will need them
    as you go through life.
    32 If you mistreat them,
    and they leave and run away,
    33 on which road will you search for them?
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...33&version=CEB

    Read that section in its context and you’ll note the verse is calling upon a master to appoint only the appropriate workload to a slave. You are bound to treat a slave as a brother or, even as you treat yourself. Hardly the picture you were painting at all.

    Odd that it would reference the slave seeking liberty if these were this was the lifelong chattel slavery you seem to be implying.

    Likewise, you took several of your sections without quoting even the full sentence, which is incredibly disingenuous. Punishment isn’t just meted out for slaves randomly, it is there for wiked slaves, those how have done evil.

    And as I pointed out above, the slave had the right to leave, and could not be returned if they escaped as the last verse points out.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is completely irrelevant. The fact is that the verse refers to the person, and not the labour in any way.
    It is incredibly relevant if, as you note, your argument rests on the Bible advocating chattel slavery. Please support or retract Challenge to support a claim. that the Hebrew is referring to the person, not the labor in “any way.”

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The evidence is how the text is represented: "he is his labour". No mention of labour at all.
    You are simply repeating your claim without evidence. Please support that the verse is actually referring to the person, not the labor rather than that you read the verse as making that implication.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I think you might mean a different post, since #28 has nothing to do with this. In any case, the support has been provided: the text refers to the person, not the labour he does. Now, to repeat, you are the person who originally claimed that it's referring to the person's labour. Please support your claim.
    You are correct, it was post 26, where you make the initial claim. “Ex 21:21 clearly refers to the slave as the property, not the slave’s labour.”

    Shifting the burden to me to “prove my challenge” is inappropriate. Please support or retract that the verse actually refers to the person, rather than you read it as referring to the person. Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Please support where it says that the princes consume work or labour.
    You misread my response. I said: “However, even in the section you mention what do the Princes consume? Is it the people? No, it is products of their work, their wealth. IE the product of their labor.”

    Thus your interpretation of the word “consume” earlier referring to spoils is incorrect given the usage there and elsewhere in the OT. You don’t consume labor, you consume the spoils, the wealth, the crops, the products of the labor. Which would seem relatively obvious, especially given your byzantine reading of the original verse to mean “consuming of the people who made the products being actually consumed by their labor.”

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Okay, so you say "chattel slavery" is immoral. How did you determine this to be the case?
    I find the same source for that conclusion that both the English and American Abolitionist movements did. Remember them? The movements that actually ended the slave trade and slavery in the West (and in most places outside of parts of the Arab world)?

    The American and English Abolisionist movements were religious organizations based around a Papal Bull by Eugene IV in 1435, the first Catholic writing on chattel slavery either way, that the owning of a human was wrong, and that holding slaves in perpetuity was against Catholic teaching. https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
    Of course Saint Bathilde was made a saint specifically because of her work stopping the slave traide in the seventh century and the Church worked with Kings to forbid the enslavement of any Christian (including converts) as early as the 1000s (and since essentially all of Europe was Christian at that point it essentially ended slavery in Europe nearly a thousand years before anywhere else on the planet). http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...7-14-53.0.html

    St. Thomas Aquinas made a powerful argument that slavery was against natural law and that he found no justification for it. https://www3.nd.edu/~pweithma/profes...0Authority.pdf
    His work was centrally cited by Pope Paul III when he banned catholics from owning slaves in 1537 (ibid).

    The abolitionist movement was focused primarily around a group of churches in England and America called the Clapham Sect:
    The Clapham Sect was a diverse but influential group of evangelical Christian social reformers that emerged in England at the end of the 18th century. The group became best known for its support of William Wilberforce’s activity in Parliament to end British participation in the international slave trade… After several decades of work, the group was initially rewarded with Parliament’s passage of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, which banned the trade throughout the British Empire. Their efforts culminated in the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833, which eliminated slavery throughout the British Empire. They were less successful in their efforts to eliminate slavery worldwide. Many contemporaries looked upon the Clapham Sect as a bunch of do-gooders whom they called pejoratively ‘the saints.’ In the light of history, however, the group has been looked upon as moral pioneers.
    J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann, Religions of the World (2nd Edition). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. 2010, 737.

    I subscribe to the same Biblical arguments the early Abolitionists did. Which is partly why your OP has been somewhat amusing. Everything you’ve laid out here was decisively rebutted in 1838. You are about 200 years too late to this party and you've taken the side of the ill informed southern farmers. You can review exactly your point and the well researched objection on page 53 here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_B...gainst_Slavery
    Likewise you can hear a sermon of essentially my main argument here: https://archive.org/details/characterinfluen05vand


    So returning to the OP, my attempt to get you to lay out your secular moral code has been in part to get you to realize that we didn’t abolish slavery based on a secular moral code, we did so based on the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Please explain how asking you what you think/believe is burden shifting?
    As you noted, you are asking so that you’ll understand “my” position. But “my” position is irrelevant to the truth of your OP and premises right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I not only brought forward the language, it's in the OP. From my post #26:
    To “allow” or give authority to do something is literally the definition of “mandate” (https://www.google.com/search?q=mandate). Therefore it is supported that the bible mandates owning people as property.
    And we generally moved past that point because it was so patently ridiculous.

    To mandate is to require something. It is an official requirement to perform a certain action:
    : an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate
    Mandating an action means that it must happen.


    To allow is to permit:
    a : permit doesn't allow people to smoke in his homeb : to fail to restrain or prevent allow the dog to roam
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allow
    Allowing means that it may happen.

    In case you feel like furthering this pedantic point. You need to support your point, “allow is literally in the definition of mandate.” The definition you offered does not have the word allow anywhere in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Please support these claims.
    These are discussed in the sections of the Talmud I already cited to you.
    Presumption of damage done to a slave is that the master did it unless the master was away, KID 20a
    Specifically discusses this verse and the presumption of guilt standards based on different scenarios. KID 24a
    GIT 12A and B discuss the obligations of a master in various scenarios, including if he has hurt or killed a slave.
    Last edited by Squatch347; July 27th, 2017 at 11:47 AM.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  23. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not exactly, I was saying that a deontologist or someone who holds a deontological moral code (IE rules not outcome based) would hold that lying is wrong (the rule). As is letting a murderer murder someone (another rule). Their argument would be that violating the first rule, even though immoral (since you aren’t supposed to break moral rules), is the right thing to do because it is the least immoral option to you.
    You said it was immoral to lie to this person, so it must be moral to have to have told the truth?

    ---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This scenario is designed to give trouble to the other great set of moral codes, utilitarianism (outcome rather than rule based). So for someone who subscribed to a utilitarian system, the “greater good” is the moral stand point.

    You certainly aren’t responsible for them being on their tracks, so you aren’t the ultimate cause of their deaths. But you are in the chain of actions that lead to their deaths right? (If a man was standing on a railroad track next to you and you didn’t pull him to safety, we generally wouldn’t just give you a free pass).


    Perhaps though neither example is very compelling because you aren’t a deontologist or a utilitarian? It might be helpful for me to understand your views on a moral code briefly to better address how this might happen in your mind. I’m not trying to shift a burden, just understand my audience a bit better.
    Hmmmm. I don't know a cute name/word for my beliefs.......and I'm not sure why it really matters. It may change the way you approach me, but it shouldn't change the truth of the argument.
    I will say, I am talking honestly, with 0 ulterior motives other than to learn.

    No, you are not really in the "chain of actions" in this case, unless you chose to be (from a strictly moral standpoint...).
    (did that help form my personal position

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Men/women's guide
    By Just Me in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 20th, 2008, 11:38 PM
  2. Slavery in the Bible
    By KneeLess in forum Religion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 21st, 2004, 08:13 PM
  3. The Bible condones slavery
    By 3rdPersonPlural in forum Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 27th, 2004, 11:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •