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 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 52 of 52
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.

    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.
    (I just don't have time to respond to your whole post, so please take my short posts when I can)

    That "laws and courts were established" using the Bible is fine, but this Op is "the Bible". Not what a slave could argue in court (if he survived to go to court). We are discussing the Bible as a guide, not how it was used.

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    Actually we are not discussing that. We are using the Bible itself as a "moral guide", not how it was subjectively used.

    Let's try a different take that doesn't take an hour to read and five hours to respond to.

    Lev 25:46

    New Int'l version:
    ".....and they will become your property"

    King James
    ".......and they shall be your possession"

    Common English Bible
    "........these can belong to you as property"

    So, we don't need to go back to Hebrew and look at the words and try to figure it out for ourselves. These are the books that "Christianity" is forwarding as "God's word". That you presume to know how to translate better than people that spend their lives doing it is suspect. The passages between Bibles (I had no idea how many Bibles there are until I research for this Op....WOW!!!!! there are a lot of them) seems pretty, incredibly clear, and why not?

    "They" are supposed to be CLEAR and understandable by EVERYONE! Not just people who have the time and intelligence to read (AND UNDERSTAND) Hebrew of old. Not, people that "had to counsel" with others to get the "real" understanding. Read the text. It's very understandable and straight forward (where your explanations are long and not clear/easily understandable). In my life, when some one is telling you something and it gets "complicated", that is when they are forging their own truth (I have done it myself on occasion, not to say I am proud of that :(


    So no, we don't need to know what the courts held (assuming the slave made it to court). We don't need to know how the Jew's (or anyone else) interpreted the Bible. We actually need to read the "Bible" if we want to know what it says about slavery. And clearly
    "they" (the many different "Bibles") are trying to convey a similar thought:
    "owned", "possession", "property"

    are how it is being expressed. Several points being discussed here (punishment, ability to go free, etc...) have similar outcomes to your issue with slaves as "property" when you actually READ the various Bibles.

    Please explain why your VERY lengthy explanations of Bible verses is more reliable than the many Bibles that are currently used to teach Christians the "truth" that have already translated from Hebrew.

    ---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    Very cool. I like a sense humor

    Especially with contentious topics! Though I really have nothing invested in this topic, I know with your world view, you do. I thought you were getting a bit emotional there for a minute.

    I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,278
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You said it was immoral to lie to this person, so it must be moral to have to have told the truth?
    Not exactly. I said that under a Deontological ethics system there would likely be a rule like "don't lie." Breaking that rule would generally be an immoral act.

    There would also likely be a rule saying "don't help murderers." And breaking that rule would generally be an immoral act.

    So if you told the truth to the murderer, you wouldn't be acting immorally by lying, but you would be acting immorally by helping a murderer, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    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
    You are absolutely right that it doesn't affect the truth of the argument, but I've found that understanding the "language" of the listener is important in communication. I want to make sure I'm not talking past you as it were because then we both just get frustrated and the discussion goes down hill.



    I'm not sure how you conclude that you aren't in the chain of actions in the scenario described. By either flipping the switch or not flipping the switch you've taken an action that affects the outcome. That makes you part of the chain of action by definition because you have a choice to make that affects the outcome.

    I think what you are arguing (and correct me if I'm inferring incorrectly) is that you are saying that doing nothing here keeps you from the situation?


    Assuming that the answer to that is yes, let me present you with this scenario.

    A man is standing on the railroad tracks. A train is coming. In order to save his life, all you need to do is alert him of the train's presence. Would failing to act and allowing him to be hit by the train be a moral action?

    If no, how is that different than your decision in the switching station?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    That "laws and courts were established" using the Bible is fine, but this Op is "the Bible". Not what a slave could argue in court (if he survived to go to court). We are discussing the Bible as a guide, not how it was used.
    That seems like an odd distinction. The Bible establishes those courts to ensure that the laws are followed. If we are discussing "the Bible" we have to talk about all the institutions it set up, including things like tribal census and judges (using the Biblical term, not the current one) who ensured that if a slave didn't survive his/her case wasn't ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Actually we are not discussing that. We are using the Bible itself as a "moral guide", not how it was subjectively used.
    Ok. So are discussing it as a moral guide. It's moral guidance here is "establish courts to prevent the deaths of slaves by their masters." We can't simply pick out one verse and take it in isolation of what was being said in the rest of the chapter, that is cherry-picking of the worst kind.

    It reminds me of the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution. People often take it out of context and think it is racist, pro-slave addition. If they bothered to read the entire section, they would realize it was an abolitionist clause because it limits the powers of slave holding states.

    Context matters here as well. The Bible is saying, "yes you can have these whole variety of labor arrangements, IF you also have these judicial and legal protections established, and follow the rules set down elsewhere."


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    So, we don't need to go back to Hebrew and look at the words and try to figure it out for ourselves. These are the books that "Christianity" is forwarding as "God's word". That you presume to know how to translate better than people that spend their lives doing it is suspect.
    Not at all. If you review my last couple of posts you'll notice that I'm forwarding translators as support. I'm not a Hebrew linguist, I'm just giving both of you the evidence of what the actual linguists say. That is why both the Christian commentaries and the Talmud (Jewish commentaries) argue that this doesn't mean you can own a person, but their labor.


    Rather, the argument you are forwarding is that your simple, plain text, reading of half a sentence is enough to fully understand what is being said. We don't even do that in our own literature or grammar classes, so I'm not sure why we should do that with the Bible.

    What is ironic imo is that the OP and I think perhaps you (sorry if I'm incorrect) are saying that your, personal reading of the verse is what all Christians thought or is what (as you say) "Christianity is forwarding." But that is nonsense. It is only what you are forwarding because it is what you are reading.

    I linked several OT commentaries by Christian authors early in thread on just this verse. I don't expect that you delved too deeply into my last post to future, but I also pointed out that this entire thread was debated about 200 years ago.

    Southern farmers (many of whom were illiterate) argued your plain text, out of context reading. Christian ministers (including the Southern Baptist Convention) pointed out just how shallow that reading is. They pointed out that it runs counter to the entire narrative of the OT and especially to Leviticus and Exodus, both of which are about the value of human beings, their inherent relationship with God, and God's sole, ultimate authority over the world. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_B...gainst_Slavery

    It was "Christianity" that created the abolitionist movement, so it seems odd that you would ascribe that reading to the same group that ended slavery in Europe and America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Please explain why your VERY lengthy explanations of Bible verses is more reliable than the many Bibles that are currently used to teach Christians the "truth" that have already translated from Hebrew.
    I'd turn it around (since it is your claim) and ask you the question. Why is Belthazor's reading of half a sentence more reliable that the forwarded evidence from dozens of Jewish and Christian scholars?

    Why should I take your "it obviously means x" over the commentaries of respected and learned Priests, Rabbis, and Preachers?
    "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. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not exactly. I said that under a Deontological ethics system there would likely be a rule like "don't lie." Breaking that rule would generally be an immoral act.

    There would also likely be a rule saying "don't help murderers." And breaking that rule would generally be an immoral act.

    So if you told the truth to the murderer, you wouldn't be acting immorally by lying, but you would be acting immorally by helping a murderer, right?
    Hmmmm (to your first point).

    But to the second, is "helping a murderer an immoral act" is vague enough to go either way. Help him murder, immoral, helping him get a meal if he hasn't eaten, probably moral, but plenty of room for immoral depending on the particular circumstances.

    ---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are absolutely right that it doesn't affect the truth of the argument, but I've found that understanding the "language" of the listener is important in communication. I want to make sure I'm not talking past you as it were because then we both just get frustrated and the discussion goes down hill.
    No worries, I did sound a bit defensive didn't I. The issue with typed conversation, what you mean doesn't always come across the way you would have liked.

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure how you conclude that you aren't in the chain of actions in the scenario described. By either flipping the switch or not flipping the switch you've taken an action that affects the outcome. That makes you part of the chain of action by definition because you have a choice to make that affects the outcome.
    I said "in a strictly moral sense". Since humans are subjective in their perception of morals, you can't decide who gets to live and who dies. You would have to posses actual "objective moral" knowledge to know how to proceed in who lives or dies. Since humans do not posses that, there is no way to act and know you are correct.

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A man is standing on the railroad tracks. A train is coming. In order to save his life, all you need to do is alert him of the train's presence. Would failing to act and allowing him to be hit by the train be a moral action?

    If no, how is that different than your decision in the switching station?
    ?

    In the first case "you" directly decide who lives/dies, and someone has to die due to your decision.
    In the second no one has to die.

    ---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=Squatch347;555214
    That seems like an odd distinction. The Bible establishes those courts to ensure that the laws are followed. If we are discussing "the Bible" we have to talk about all the institutions it set up, including things like tribal census and judges (using the Biblical term, not the current one) who ensured that if a slave didn't survive his/her case wasn't ignored.
    [/QUOTE]

    Really?
    When discussing if the Bible is a good moral guide, seems to me, we would discuss, you know, what's actually in the Bible. You want show when it was used for good for support. I could show when it was used for bad. So what???

    How the Bible was subjectively used, really speaks nothing to whether it is an objective, authoritative source though, Right?

    ---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=Squatch347;555214]
    Ok. So are discussing it as a moral guide. It's moral guidance here is "establish courts to prevent the deaths of slaves by their masters." We can't simply pick out one verse and take it in isolation of what was being said in the rest of the chapter, that is cherry-picking of the worst kind.
    QUOTE]

    Again, how it was subjectively used, has little bearing on it's truth value, right? A "moral guide" for all humans should stand on it's own merit, right?
    Not just how it was used.

    Your second comment is a bit inflammatory, and I think, unwarranted, but we will get to that.

    ---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It reminds me of the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution. People often take it out of context and think it is racist, pro-slave addition. If they bothered to read the entire section, they would realize it was an abolitionist clause because it limits the powers of slave holding states.
    This seems a little off as well, since you seem to presuppose I have not read the passages in question in their entirety. Please focus on my argument and not me.

    ---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather, the argument you are forwarding is that your simple, plain text, reading of half a sentence is enough to fully understand what is being said. We don't even do that in our own literature or grammar classes, so I'm not sure why we should do that with the Bible.
    Flame on.....accusing me of arguing something I haven't read is bad form. You could have worded that without the implied ad hom.

    I thought that at ODN, when one quoted an outside source (in this case Leviticus) one gave the source (per numbered verse), then the pertinent point that supports your own position. I don't type fast and I really didn't see the rest of the verse supported (or the ones previous or past for that matter) your position or I would have included it.

    Did you really want me to type all of Leviticus from over 40 Bibles? Again, I have read all of it. I will put it here if you like, but I don't see it helping your case....

    So, I guess, your point is "simple, plain text reading" (like you would do with any other book) doesn't make sense because it was written purposefully cryptic, as to require additional outside sources to fully understand what is written in the Bible?

    I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but that is what it sounds like.

    ---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What is ironic imo is that the OP and I think perhaps you (sorry if I'm incorrect) are saying that your, personal reading of the verse is what all Christians thought or is what (as you say) "Christianity is forwarding." But that is nonsense. It is only what you are forwarding because it is what you are reading.
    Pretty sure what I was forwarding is the "Bible" is what Christians are forwarding as truth, without having to read any other source for God's true word.

    Perhaps I have been unclear. The Op is using the Bible as "the source" for morals, and that is what I am discussing. You keep wanting to add all sorts of other sources.

    WHY?

    ---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'd turn it around (since it is your claim) and ask you the question. Why is Belthazor's reading of half a sentence more reliable that the forwarded evidence from dozens of Jewish and Christian scholars?

    Why should I take your "it obviously means x" over the commentaries of respected and learned Priests, Rabbis, and Preachers?
    What claim did I make here?

    AND BECAUSE

    Belthazor, as the ultimate source of all evils, knows these things ! (it's kinda part of the job

    Seriously though, you accuse me of not having read what I argue against,.....again.

    So again, your point, if I may, is:

    "The Bible can't be read literally, in the most common way we talk today, even though, it was written for people of today, to understand what was happening 2000 years ago, as well as how we should live today"

    Is that correct?

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    326
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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?
    That's irrelevant. The definition explains the usage of the combination of "secular", "moral", and "system". Picture people coming together - any number - and dealing with morality outside religious traditions. The discussions, conclusions, goals, and assessments are all part of that secular moral system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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?
    I'm not sure what you mean by realm or vehicle, or why this is relevant. A secular moral system happens when people deal with morality outside of religious traditions. This can happen in many different ways, such as people working to change the laws to better fit the objective moral conclusions they've reached, or by organizing to prevent an outcome which has been objectively identified as not aligning with the goals of the moral system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, then how do we have access to our secular moral system aside from the law?
    I wouldn't say it's a system that is accessed, but that it simply exists when and where people deal with questions of morality outside religious traditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    What elements of the moral system are you referring to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We know it violates the system because a lot of people say it does? http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html
    Your link is banned, but I see what you're getting at. In any case, this is not an appeal to popularity. The original text: "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)". Saying that's an appeal to popularity is like saying the statement "getting the puck in the net is the desired goal of hockey players, which is evidenced by the fact that hockey players try to get the puck in the net" is an appeal to popularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    The opposition, debates, back-and-forth, is simply another representation of the secular moral system at work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    Well, for one, there's overwhelming statistics which I'm sure you're aware of that show that religiosity has been steadily declining over the past generations. While there aren't any surveys which have specifically asked sets of people which specific moral system they support as you seem to require, the evidence shows that secularism is on the rise. I'm also sure you're aware of the statistics showing the proportional relationship between the level of religiosity in a country and it's crime rates.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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).
    The act of observing is subjective, but we can establish that the things which have been observed or measured don't require interpretation and can be treated as objective facts. When doing science, observations are treated as objective when interpretation is limited to conform to standard uniform conventions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What are the objective facts that led to that determination?
    The fact that owning people as property goes against the goals set by the moral system. Because of that, the system determines that it's immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    No. You defined "objective moral code" as "moral duties and obligations are objectively true". We have no demonstration of the existence of any objectively true moral duties or obligations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    It's the secular moral system, not just a code. Also, I didn't claim that the system itself is objective, merely that the assessments which are made within it are objective. Personally, I find that taking a hard stance to whether morality is objective or subjective is ill-defined and therefore pointless, especially when we can see right now how real morality is being done within the secular moral system: humans realising that they're stuck on a planet together and deciding how best to co-exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except, you just stated that the laws give us no real insight into our moral code
    Please indicate where I stated this. Also, how are you defining "real insight"? I don't recall using those words. On what basis are you deciding that your a) and b) are the requirements which determine what that "real insight" is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So again, how do we know, in an objective sense that it violates “our” (also please define who “our” represents) secular moral code?
    Because it is against the goals set by our system. The people using and participating in the system are represented by "our".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    I never claimed that the system is objective, but that since it can be used to make objective assessments about morality, it's the closest thing we have to an objective system. It's not just a set of pronouncements. The definition was already offered for "secular moral system": "what happens when people deal with morality outside religious traditions".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What happens if a society changes its mind? What happens if another society disagrees?
    That's all part of the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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?
    Eugenics was not a moral system, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that since there were proponents of Eugenics in the past, that a secular moral system is inherently worse than the claimed objective moral pronouncements?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, it is a point of disagreement. I think you need to review that term, you seem to use it incorrectly quite often.
    No, it's a strawman. If it were a point of disagreement, you would have attempted to resolve it before misrepresenting my OP as you did. Since you just went ahead and misrepresented my OP, it's a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You have not offered any support that the Bible supports owning a person as property.
    Lev. 25:45.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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).
    This doesn't refute the fact that Lev. 25:45 clearly indicates people are property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You’ve offered nothing that argues that the person specifically is owned.
    Lev. 25:45 specifically refers to people being owned.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    Again, this is all quite irrelevant to the fact that the bible condones and mandates slavery (owning people as property).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    This is all irrelevant to the fact that Lev. 25:45 specifically refers to people being owned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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?
    Provided in post #31:
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Do you mean besides when the translators use the term to mean “worshiper?” And “servant?”
    The prevalence of 'abad used to mean "servant" and only occasionally as "service" only proves my point, and ties in with the fact that Lev. 24:45 refers to ownership of people, which are later referred to as servants/labourers.

    Further, it's interesting to note, from some of the passages you provided, that the noun form of 'abad, 'abodah, is used, which is actually the noun "labour". However, we don't have 'abodah in Lev 25:46, which again ties in with the people being the possession, not the labour.

    Also, and I'm not sure whether this is intentional, but you have misinterpreted Zeke 29:20 and Gen 30:26.
    In Zeke 29:20, the "his labour" comes from pe'ullah, and 'abad is used as the verb "to serve":
    "I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it"
    In Gen 30:26, the "my service" comes from 'abodah, the noun "labour", and 'abad is again used as the verb "to serve":
    "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"

    So yet again, we can see that 'abad is not used in Lev 25:46 to refer to labour which is owned, but to the servants which are owned, which are also the people specifically referred to as possessions in Lev 25:45.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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).
    I don't recall saying that the most logical translation is that they're owning the verb. Please indicate where I said this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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).
    With the prevalence of 'abad being used to mean "servants", the lack of 'el-leh is not an issue. Lev 25:45 clearly refers to the people which are possessions, and then Lev 25:46 refers to them as servants which are inherited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    Again, the Talmud is irrelevant to whether the bible should be consideres as a moral guide. Also, the use of 'achuzzah in Lev 25:45 is specifically for people, as explained in post #31:
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    First, it's not a personal reading, it's what the translated text says. Second, I don't see a problem with the commentators, since most of them appear to be also reading what the text actually says.
    Ellicott's Commentary: "(45) And they shall be your possession. These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property. (46) And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children. That is, they may appropriate them to themselves, as their personal property, which is transmissible as inheritance to posterity with the family land."
    Barne's notes: "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom (Genesis 17:12.)"
    George Haydock's Catholic commentary: "Servants, or slaves, whom you may treat with greater severity than the Hebrews, and keep for ever, even though they may have embraced the true faith."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    Again, it's not a "reading of the translations", it's what the text says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    Are you saying that American slave-owners could not manumit their slaves if they wanted to? That was the point: if we're just talking about simple manumission, then the fact that the bible allows slave-owners to manumit their slaves is irrelevant to the fact that the bible does allow for (mandates) permanent ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    I gave you sufficient reasons: "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
    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.
    The OP clearly refers to the bible being used as a moral guide. If you're claiming that the bible plus the talmud must be used as a moral guide, then that's a different debate. Feel free to start one in a separate thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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?
    Again, the Talmud is irrelevant to what the bible says must happen when a slave-owner beats their slave.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    25:6, the products of the land are for you to own, including servants (note the same Hebrew word used here as slave elsewhere)
    This just says that the product of the land during the sabbath year is food for the slave-owner and his slaves. This makes no reference to a slave being "guaranteed his own property", as you claimed. Looking at the context, this is clearly part of the rules for farming, and not some altruistic expression of recognizing slaves as having property. Nice Cherry Picking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    I was simply pointing out that nothing in the biblical passages you referenced in #5 indicated that the slave's wages could purchase their freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    This is all irrelevant to the fact that if the slave only dies after a day or two of the beating, the master is not punished. That's what it means to be allowed to beat a slave to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    This is irrelevant. We're not talking about "if the slave doesn't die at all", we're talking about the slave dying after a day or two, and the master not being punished for beating the slave to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Second, please support or retract that this verse is specifically referring to only the case where a master has one slave.
    Sirach 33: "(31) If you have but one slave, treat him like yourself ... If you have but one slave, treat him like a brother, for you will need him ... (32) If you ill-treat him ..."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    So you agree that this passage doesn't mention manumission at all. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Odd that it would reference the slave seeking liberty if these were this was the lifelong chattel slavery you seem to be implying.
    Why is it odd that a slave subject to permanent ownership would seek liberty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    First, I only took three sections. Second, I quoted the full sentences for each section. Third, nothing about the way I quoted the sections indicates that I was saying that punishment was meted out randomly - please note that I even included the requirement clause for when the punishment should be meted out. Incredibly disingenuous, indeed. In any case, the point is that the slaves are treated like property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    And the slave-owner had the right to go and find them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is incredibly relevant if, as you note, your argument rests on the Bible advocating chattel slavery.
    Again, and for the last time hopefully, the OP is about the bible condoning and mandating owning people as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please support or retract that the Hebrew is referring to the person, not the labor in “any way.”
    Lev. 25:45.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    It's not a claim, it's what the verse says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.”
    This was not the initial claim. As I already explained in post #26:
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please support or retract that the verse actually refers to the person, rather than you read it as referring to the person.
    You seem to have a funny thing going here. Whenever the someone points out biblical passages which say something you don't like, you appear to have a strange penchant for chalking it up to that person's "reading of" the passage and claiming that's not what it actually means. Unfortunately, the passage stands for itself and does not (nor should it) require any special reading.
    Again, from Lev 25:45 - "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."
    But since you'll just come back and say that I'm reading it wrong, here's the analysis of the Hebrew:
    We have 'achuzzah regarding ownership of possessions. What are the possessions? There is ben (son or child), towshab (strangers/residents) and mishpachah (family). No mention whatsoever of labour, and no use of 'abad or any of its forms in Lev 25:45.
    But since you'll just come back and say that this is just my interpretation, here are the commentaries:
    Ellicott's Commentary: "(45) And they shall be your possession. These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property. (46) And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children. That is, they may appropriate them to themselves, as their personal property, which is transmissible as inheritance to posterity with the family land."
    Barne's notes: "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom (Genesis 17:12.)"
    George Haydock's Catholic commentary: "Servants, or slaves, whom you may treat with greater severity than the Hebrews, and keep for ever, even though they may have embraced the true faith."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You don’t consume labor, you consume the spoils, the wealth, the crops, the products of the labor.
    Let's re-cap:
    You (post #12): I'd be curious if you could show where the Bible says that a master owns the person, rather than owns their labor.
    Me (#15): Deut. 20:14 has the women and children taken as plunder/spoils.
    You (#23): [Deut 20:14] mandates the Israelites not kill women and children, [and does not] refer to your claim of ownership of the person rather than labor.
    Me (#26): Deut 20:14 clearly refers to the people being taken as plunder.

    In any case, since you'll just come back and say this is my flawed reading, here's the Hebrew analysis:
    "the women ('ishshah) and the little ones (taph), the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder (bazaz)".
    So we have the women and children as subjects to the verb bazaz, which means "to spoil, plunder, prey upon, seize".



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I subscribe to the same Biblical arguments the early Abolitionists did.
    So, you haven't actually determined that owning people as property is immoral, you're just agreeing with others' interpretations of the bible. Further, on what basis do you accept the super-ultra-moral and lengthy anti-slavery interpretations over what the text says?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You can review exactly your point and the well researched objection on page 53 here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_B...gainst_Slavery
    No, you can post your own support like everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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?
    Hold on, you said that those questions are shifting the burden. And when asked how they are burden-shifting, now you're saying they're irrelevant? Please explain how asking an irrelevant question could ever be considered burden-shifting? It seems like you're going to great lengths to avoid answering them, even to the point of contradicting yourself on the reason why you don't want to answer them (is it because they're burden-shifting, or because they're irrelevant?).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And we generally moved past that point because it was so patently ridiculous.
    No, "we" didn't move past it, you simply ignored the definition provided in post #26.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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
    The OP uses the verb, not the noun. You provided the 1st definition of the noun.
    Here is the definition of the verb to mandate: "to give (someone) authority to act in a certain way."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    The verb allow: "give (someone) permission to do something"
    Some useful synonyms: approve, authorize, empower, endorse, sanction
    Therefore, to “allow” or give authority to do something is literally the definition of “mandate”.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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 20aSpecifically discusses this verse and the presumption of guilt standards based on different scenarios. KID 24aGIT 12A and B discuss the obligations of a master in various scenarios, including if he has hurt or killed a slave.
    So for the record no, the bible doesn't state that a court was obligated to review cases where slaves were beaten to death. Thanks for confirming!

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all. If you review my last couple of posts you'll notice that I'm forwarding translators as support. I'm not a Hebrew linguist, I'm just giving both of you the evidence of what the actual linguists say. That is why both the Christian commentaries and the Talmud (Jewish commentaries) argue that this doesn't mean you can own a person, but their labor.

    Rather, the argument you are forwarding is that your simple, plain text, reading of half a sentence is enough to fully understand what is being said. We don't even do that in our own literature or grammar classes, so I'm not sure why we should do that with the Bible.
    Is the Bible forwarded by Christianity as the true word of God?
    Where in the Bible does it say that you need to read other sources to understand it?
    (Why should you need other sources to understand it)

    If the translation you are forwarding is more correct, why are the several dozen most commonly used "Bibles" still using "owned, property, etc"? They each basically paraphrase each other and say pretty much the same thing (regarding slaves).

    Really the distinction you are using for labor instead of owned is fairly dubious (which is why I left it to you and Future to discuss). My labor is me doing "anything". If you control what I do, you control me. The difference "here", between labor, control, and own is negligible (if even observable?).
    So I am good with you using "owned their labor" instead of the "person" as I see no discernable difference....

    But again, if it doesn't translate to "owned", "property" etc, why don't they change it to "labor" so everybody can understand?
    Seems pretty simple?

    You asked why take "Belthazor's read"????............um cause it makes sense, needs no other authors, explanations, or stretches of definitions.

    I forward that it doesn't really make sense that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says unless you do a bunch of research etc.....

    Does God really want you to fallow? Some people are stupid (sorry, never got into political correctness - it's insidious). They need the chance to fallow God too ya know
    Why would it be made purposefully hard to understand basic human dignity????
    Why should one have to consult other sources on such a topic??

  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn NY Fuggedaboutit
    Posts
    158
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Hi ODN,

    Although I do not have a lot of time to comment, I have followed this site and appreciate the well thought out opinions and interests of those here.

    I would like to weigh in on this topic of slavery in the Bible vis a vis "morality".

    The OP claims slavery (defined as owning someone as property) is immoral. However, the OP gives no real support for this idea.

    IMHO:

    Slavery can be moral and/or it can be immoral.

    1. Slavery can be moral if: a. the master is a responsible human with compassion for his fellow man b. the slave left to his own devices of freedom would most likely fall into depravity and/or self destruction c. the slave would benefit greatly by molding his identity into someone who served a greater good.

    I believe this is the type of slavery approved by the Bible.

    2. Slavery is immoral when one (or more) of the above three conditions is not in place. Then, the concept of personal freedom and personal identity trumps the potential value of servitude.

    So, in ancient times, many slaves were better off that way; physically and spiritually. In modern times, humanity has advanced (IMHO thanks to the Judeo-Christian value system) to a stage where society is healthy enough to preclude slavery as an option.
    An idealist is willing to suffer for what they believe in.

    A fanatic is willing to make others suffer for what they believe in.

  8. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery.
    Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.
    What I post is not an argument, but it is interesting and may make some
    measurable contribution to the thread. Its a quote from Paul Copan's book
    Is God A Moral Monster?: Making Sense Of The Old Testament God, pages
    219-220

    "Rodney Stark --- the respected eight-hundred pound gorilla among sociologists ---
    shows in his book The Victory of Reason how the 'success of the West, including
    the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations and the people who
    brought it about were devout Christians.' But don't just take a Christian sociologists
    word for it. Jurgen Habermas is one of Europe's most prominent philosophers today.
    Another fact about Habermas: he's a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. Yet he highlights the
    inescapable historical fact that the Biblical faith was the profound influence in shaping
    civilization. Consider carefully his assessment:


    'Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity
    as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which
    sprang the ideas of freedom and a social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct
    of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights,
    and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian
    ethic of love.
    This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of
    continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day there is no
    alternative to it.
    And in light of current challenges of a postnational
    constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage.
    Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.' "

    Copan continues . . .
    In the words of human rights scholar Max Stackhouse, 'Intellectual honesty
    demands recognition of the fact that what passes as secular Western
    principles of basic human rights developed nowhere else than out of key
    strands of the Biblically-rooted religion."

    [I typed the quote.]

  9. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn NY Fuggedaboutit
    Posts
    158
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    BTW,

    The verse (Ex 21:20-21 "And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property.") which shows that a master assaulting his slave can avoid capital charges, if the victim survives for 24 hours (a defense unavailable when the assailant and victim are free men; see verses 18-19) has nothing to do with the suggested attitude, that a slave's life is in any way inferior to that of a free man. This is shown to be true by simply reading verse 20: "...he shall surely be avenged."

    So why would the Bible make an exception here?

    See verses 12-14: "One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee. But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die."

    The Bible gives the death penalty for murder when we can establish motive. So how do we know the motive of the assailant? Well, usually, if the blow was dealt in anger AND the victim dies (even many days later) then the force of the blow establishes motive and the murderer is assumed to be guilty.

    However, in the case of the master vs. slave assault, the master can plead with the court, that he never intended the death of the slave. Why would he? The slave is his property (=$$$) !! Who in their right mind destroys their own money?

    Therefore, if the blow didn't kill the slave immediately (within 24 hours) it lacked force. That coupled with the assumption that masters do not intend to bankrupt themselves, leaves the court without a way to prove intent. The verse actually says this: "...He shall not be avenged, because he is his property.
    An idealist is willing to suffer for what they believe in.

    A fanatic is willing to make others suffer for what they believe in.

  10. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery.
    Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.
    This post is an argument. Because the Bible includes Genesis to Revelation
    and has a fundamental message. And you said "Bible", you didn't limit your
    OP's proposition to "just the parts that deal with slavery." So what is
    the fundamental message of Biblical Christianity? I will let Tim Keller
    tell you about it:

    "If your fundamental is a man dying on the cross for His enemies, if the very
    heart of your self-image and your religion is a man praying for His enemies
    as he died for them, sacrificing for them, loving them --- if that sinks into
    your heart of hearts, its going to produce the kind of life that the early
    Christians produced. The most inclusive possible life out of the most
    exclusive possible claim --- and that is that this is the truth. But what
    is the truth? The truth is a God become weak, loving, and dying for the
    people who opposed Him, forgiving them."__Tim Keller


    That up there is the core moral ethic of Biblical Christianity (sacrificial love
    for the benefit of others) and that core principle is a very good moral guide.

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    Hi ODN,
    Good day Rabbi

    ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    The OP claims slavery (defined as owning someone as property) is immoral. However, the OP gives no real support for this idea.
    I believe most people would see this as self evident.

    May I ask, would you be ok with such an arrangement (you being the slave, of course)?

    ---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    Slavery can be moral if: a. the master is a responsible human with compassion for his fellow man b. the slave left to his own devices of freedom would most likely fall into depravity and/or self destruction c. the slave would benefit greatly by molding his identity into someone who served a greater good.
    I am not used to talking with someone who supports the concept.

    A good section of Americans are falling into depravity/self destruction (obesity, alcoholism, drug addiction, porn addiction, "slothliness", murder, rape, etc...). These people would definitely "benefit greatly" by this intervention!! It would help them be healthier (and lower health insurance), live longer and happier! This would help society in general a great deal as well.
    And once they are healthy and able to work, we can decide what to do with their "labor" (I say that for Squatch, you seem ok with people being owned, he was a stickler for only labor was owned, not the person for whatever reason???), which would also benefit society as a whole.

    I think we should consider enslaving this large percentage of the American people, for their own benefit and for that of society. Which would also benefit the rest of the world as well
    The greater good served as well as these lost individuals personally will benefit! Win, Win!!

    I am very responsible, and have tons of compassion for my fellow man, with only their best interest in mind.

    Perhaps I could be the owner??



    ---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JAGG View Post
    Copan continues . . .
    In the words of human rights scholar Max Stackhouse, 'Intellectual honesty
    demands recognition of the fact that what passes as secular Western
    principles of basic human rights developed nowhere else than out of key
    strands of the Biblically-rooted religion."

    [I typed the quote.]

    Hello

    That the Bible has been used in very positive ways is not under dispute here.
    It has also been used in a number of very negative ways, also not under dispute.

    How does this support it's moral truth?

    ---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    BTW,

    The verse (Ex 21:20-21 "And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property.") which shows that a master assaulting his slave can avoid capital charges, if the victim survives for 24 hours (a defense unavailable when the assailant and victim are free men; see verses 18-19) has nothing to do with the suggested attitude, that a slave's life is in any way inferior to that of a free man. This is shown to be true by simply reading verse 20: "...he shall surely be avenged."
    [/U][/B]
    This sounds like if you only hit your "maid servant" with a "rod" and only leave bruises, you need not fear punishment, since this verse refers to death or permanent disability, and not just simple injury/pain?

    ---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    BTW,

    The verse (Ex 21:20-21 "And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property.") which shows that a master assaulting his slave can avoid capital charges, if the victim survives for 24 hours (a defense unavailable when the assailant and victim are free men; see verses 18-19) has nothing to do with the suggested attitude, that a slave's life is in any way inferior to that of a free man. This is shown to be true by simply reading verse 20: "...he shall surely be avenged."

    So why would the Bible make an exception here?

    See verses 12-14: "One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee. But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die."

    The Bible gives the death penalty for murder when we can establish motive. So how do we know the motive of the assailant? Well, usually, if the blow was dealt in anger AND the victim dies (even many days later) then the force of the blow establishes motive and the murderer is assumed to be guilty.

    However, in the case of the master vs. slave assault, the master can plead with the court, that he never intended the death of the slave. Why would he? The slave is his property (=$$$) !! Who in their right mind destroys their own money?

    Therefore, if the blow didn't kill the slave immediately (within 24 hours) it lacked force. That coupled with the assumption that masters do not intend to bankrupt themselves, leaves the court without a way to prove intent. The verse actually says this: "...He shall not be avenged, because he is his property.
    How can a slave's life possibly not be "inferior" to that of a free man if he is "property"?
    Or do you just mean, God thinks no less of a slave than he does an owner? As in their lives have "equal worth in the eyes of God"?

    Because certainly they are not equal in any other sense!!
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 4th, 2017 at 04:58 PM.

  12. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    [/COLOR]

    How can a slave's life possibly not be "inferior" to that of a free man if he is "property"?
    Or do you just mean, God thinks no less of a slave than he does an owner? As in their lives have "equal worth in the eyes of God"?

    Because certainly they are not equal in any other sense!![/QUOTE]


    As this thread seems to be winding down, I think it is an important enough point to repeat.

    The only way you can say a "slave is equal to his master" is "in the eyes of God", is as a "soul".

    To recap:
    "you" are a woman and/or child, and your husband/father was just killed in a brutal conflict, as were all adult males in your family. "You" are rounded up and taken away to be a "slave". Your "labor" (read life) no longer belongs to you. It is possible you may be freed someday.
    It is possible you will not be.

    Clearly, here on earth, "slaves" are inferior to their owners.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

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
  •