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 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 161
  1. #81
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    342
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    For 1:

    While Leviticus 25 speaks to owning non-Hebrew slaves potentially permanently (they had the option to free them), there were still restrictions regarding treatment of non-hebrews. Leviticus 19: 33-34 states that Hebrews were to treat foreigners like they would a native and do them no wrong. Exodus 23:9 says Hebrews are not to oppress foreigners. So it's not exactly like they were told they had "free reign" over the slaves they had.

    In Exodus 21:2-7 I'm not sure I see exactly what the problem here is. It offers some rights and limitations to slaves. For men, they automatically are freed after six years of service unless they choose to remain a slave. If they were married when they (and their family) were made slaves, then the family is freed with them. The issue of a man marrying AFTER he becomes a slave and not being able to take her with him when freed sounds harsh, but remember, for the slave owner here the woman was owned separately from the man in that instance and the decision here is somewhat equitable as a means to allow fair treatment for both the slave and the owner. Elsewise the issue could easily become that women are marrying men they don't love just for freedom (a sort of green card marriage in antiquity).

    Furthermore, it goes on to state that if a man purchases a woman and treates her with neglect, he has to free her. If HE isn't satisfied with her, then he STILL has to set her free. If he buys her for his son, he has to treat her as though she's his daughter. Also, Exodus 20:10 states that slaves (regardless of gender or origin) are to be given the sabbath day to rest and worship.

    Exodus 21:20-21 isn't as bad as it sounds either. Remember that there were regulations regarding punishments for slaves. 26-27 states that if a man handicaps a slave or even breaks one of his teeth that he (the slave) is to be set free. And this isn't legalese here. A layman's reading means the passage is saying "If you damage the slave in a way that's permanent, you don't get to keep that slave" A lot of passages like this from Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus take care to remind the Israelites "You guys were slaves, don't be like the Egyptians were to you" and "You guys know what it's like to be foreigners, so don't be a dick to foreigners". But the implication here appears to be that if a slave lives on for a day or two, then there's a good chance the owner killed him accidentally.

    And before we dive into D-bag owners who ignored the "Don't be an asshole to slaves" rules, Deuteronomy 23: 15-16 says that if a slave escapes, you are NOT to hand him back to the owner. You are to find him a place that is agreeable to him, and let him live there for the rest of his life.

    So if we're talking slavery, what we're talking here is a system that affords a person a day of rest, limitations on the punishment they can endure, terms of service with "termination clauses", and even the option to run away without penalty.

    The only real problem though, as far as the OP is concerned, is that it smuggles a premise, IE, slavery is bad. You didn't establish that slavery in fact IS bad and therefore ought to be opposed morally. So whether or not the Bible opposes slavery doesn't really matter if there's no discernable reason to accept that slavery is morally wrong.

    BUT, in Paul's letter to Philemon (book of the Bible entitled "Philemon" ) Paul does argue that Philemon ought to free Onesimus because it is the right thing to do (Philemon 1:8-16) and that he (Philemon) is in fact required to free Onesimus (verse 8).

    So I hope that satisfies. We've established there are regulations for treatment of slaves (men, women, Hebrews and Gentiles), that the NT has scripture opposing slavery, and that even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter since it isn't expressly established by the OP that slavery is immoral. Though I admit, this presents an odd issue for both of us. On the one hand, I can't argue that you have to establish that slavery is immoral for the conclusion to follow if I provide scripture plainly implying that it is (which would be why Paul is telling the man to free the slave), and similarly, you can't argue that the Bible doesn't oppose slavery if you cite the passage to support that it views it's immoral.
    So you or one of your family could currently be in this situation (being a slave) and it would be moral and all is fine?

  2. #82
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    For 1:
    You simply re-iterated how all those passages provide clear instructions on how to do slavery (owning people as property). So you accept #1 that the bible condones and mandates slavery (owning people as property)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Leviticus 19: 33-34 states that Hebrews were to treat foreigners like they would a native and do them no wrong
    "Do them no wrong" - Since the bible clearly doesn't indicate that slavery is wrong, then this point is perfectly in line with the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    So if we're talking slavery, what we're talking here is a system that affords a person a day of rest, limitations on the punishment they can endure, terms of service with "termination clauses", and even the option to run away without penalty.
    We're talking slavery as "owning people as property". So you think it's moral to own people as property?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    The only real problem though, as far as the OP is concerned, is that it smuggles a premise, IE, slavery is bad. You didn't establish that slavery in fact IS bad and therefore ought to be opposed morally. So whether or not the Bible opposes slavery doesn't really matter if there's no discernable reason to accept that slavery is morally wrong.
    I guess if you don't think it's wrong to own people as property, then the fact that the bible condones and mandates it is not an issue for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    BUT, in Paul's letter to Philemon (book of the Bible entitled "Philemon" ) Paul does argue that Philemon ought to free Onesimus because it is the right thing to do (Philemon 1:8-16) and that he (Philemon) is in fact required to free Onesimus (verse 8).
    The book of Philemon is a letter from one man to one slave owner about how he doesn't want his one slave friend to continue being a slave. This is not a clearly-expressed moral opposition to the institution of slavery, especially considering the numerous other verses where slavery is explicitly endorsed and mandated. So #2 stands, as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    We've established there are regulations for treatment of slaves
    So you agree with #1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    the NT has scripture opposing slavery
    If your only support for this is Philemon, then no, it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    and that even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter since it isn't expressly established by the OP that slavery is immoral
    Again, if you don't think it's immoral, I don't see why this is an issue for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Though I admit, this presents an odd issue for both of us. On the one hand, I can't argue that you have to establish that slavery is immoral for the conclusion to follow if I provide scripture plainly implying that it is (which would be why Paul is telling the man to free the slave), and similarly, you can't argue that the Bible doesn't oppose slavery if you cite the passage to support that it views it's immoral.
    No, just an issue for you, since I don't require verses in the bible to understand why slavery is wrong. There's no problem in someone holding slavery as immoral for secular reasons also recognizing that the bible isn't opposed to it.

  3. #83
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So you or one of your family could currently be in this situation (being a slave) and it would be moral and all is fine?
    That's not what I'm suggesting. My position here isn't that slavery is moral. In a debate if I make a claim, your opposition to that claim doesn't mean that you support the opposite view, IE, if I say Chocolate is the best ice cream, you disagreeing doesn't mean that you believe Vanilla is the best, only that you disagree that Chocolate is the best. I'm disputing Future's claim that the Bible cannot be used as a moral guide given the passages about slavery. No more, no less.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You simply re-iterated how all those passages provide clear instructions on how to do slavery (owning people as property). So you accept #1 that the bible condones and mandates slavery (owning people as property)?
    I assume you mean "mandate" as in "authorizes", correct? If that's the case, then yes, I agree with you that the Old Testament had scripture clearly outlining regulations regarding an existing institution at the time. Also, if you're using mandate as a synonym for authorize, you don't need to include the word condone since the reading of mandate makes it superfluous. It's probably why people misread it earlier in the thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    "Do them no wrong" - Since the bible clearly doesn't indicate that slavery is wrong, then this point is perfectly in line with the OP.
    Not really the crux of the issue here either. It's more informative in building a case on the problem with what appears to be your reasoning for why slavery is immoral.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    We're talking slavery as "owning people as property". So you think it's moral to own people as property?
    I have to make this clear: I'm not claiming that slavery is moral. Nor am I claiming that the Bible states that slavery is moral. The sole purpose of my existence in this discussion is to dispute your claim that the Bible cannot be used as a moral guide given it's [as stated] lack of condemnation for the institution.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I guess if you don't think it's wrong to own people as property, then the fact that the bible condones and mandates it is not an issue for you.
    And that's just unecessary. Assume, for the sake of this debate, that I have ZERO understanding of what makes slavery immoral. At this point in the discussion, beyond telling me it's immoral, I've got not reason to accept that it's moral OR immoral. It's a morally neutral concept to me. Make me understand the immorality of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The book of Philemon is a letter from one man to one slave owner about how he doesn't want his one slave friend to continue being a slave. This is not a clearly-expressed moral opposition to the institution of slavery, especially considering the numerous other verses where slavery is explicitly endorsed and mandated. So #2 stands, as well.
    Whether it's one man's appeal or not is irrelevant. You stated: The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery.

    The book of Philemon is in the Bible. In Philemon, Paul argues that freeing Onesimus is the right (moral) thing to do. Whether it's one man's appeal or not to one man or not doesn't matter. All that matters there is that A: It's a part of the Bible, and B: Shows opposition to slavery. And C: There's no ambiguity in the text. This effectively makes a clear moral opposition contained in the Bible. Your distinction that it's "just one man" is shifting the goal posts. You went from "No clear mention at all" to "No clear mention against the entire institution"

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If your only support for this is Philemon, then no, it doesn't.
    It appears to be the most clear instance, to my knowledge. Understanding of course (as I assume we both do) that slavery was a widespread thing at the time, and a large part of the text in Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy were to create a culture that was strikingly different than those around it. Israel was designed to, while allowing slavery to exist, treat slaves as just under hired servants. Did people follow that practice? Probably not. From the New Testament, it becomes clear that over time Israel had kind of gotten away from slavery as a whole as I can't really recall any instances in the gospels of them ever even seeing a slave. And we can safely say that's not because of the Romans. So at the very least, it would appear that the regulations for the slave trade in Israel had a positive impact in the short term of seeing them treated humanely, and in the long term making it more beneficial to have a hired servant than a slave.

    So for a clear opposition here, you're making a difficult request to answer because in the Old Testament it was so widespread that it an almost inescable part of life and by the time the New Testament happened, it had largely been phased out of Israelite culture.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, just an issue for you, since I don't require verses in the bible to understand why slavery is wrong. There's no problem in someone holding slavery as immoral for secular reasons also recognizing that the bible isn't opposed to it.
    Again with the misguided jabs. All I'm asking here is that you explain to me explicitly what makes owning another person wrong in and of itself. Without that, I've got no reason to accept that you're right that slavery IS immoral, just like I wouldn't accept it if you repeatedly said that slavery was moral without giving me a reason to accept it.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  4. #84
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    342
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    That's not what I'm suggesting. My position here isn't that slavery is moral. In a debate if I make a claim, your opposition to that claim doesn't mean that you support the opposite view, IE, if I say Chocolate is the best ice cream, you disagreeing doesn't mean that you believe Vanilla is the best, only that you disagree that Chocolate is the best. I'm disputing Future's claim that the Bible cannot be used as a moral guide given the passages about slavery. No more, no less.
    Ok, but in the case of slavery, I can only see two flavors. It's ok or its not. Perhaps you could help me see the alternatives?

    So let me ask you the same question I asked Squatch a few posts back.

    The US is hit with an EMP (electromagnetic pulse weapon - North Korea currently owns by the way) and pretty much everything electrical will not work. There would be TOTAL chaos. Should/could we use the Bible's comments on slavery in such a situation??

    ---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Again with the misguided jabs. All I'm asking here is that you explain to me explicitly what makes owning another person wrong in and of itself. Without that, I've got no reason to accept that you're right that slavery IS immoral, just like I wouldn't accept it if you repeatedly said that slavery was moral without giving me a reason to accept it.
    If I could have you as a slave (fallowing the Bibles code of conduct of course) for a week, I am positive you would have the answer to this question.

    What of the "God given right be free and pursue happiness"

  5. #85
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, but in the case of slavery, I can only see two flavors. It's ok or its not. Perhaps you could help me see the alternatives?

    So let me ask you the same question I asked Squatch a few posts back.

    The US is hit with an EMP (electromagnetic pulse weapon - North Korea currently owns by the way) and pretty much everything electrical will not work. There would be TOTAL chaos. Should/could we use the Bible's comments on slavery in such a situation??
    To answer the first question, it's a simple debate structure. Think of a claim as a house. Future introduces the claim and, following the analogy, therefore has to build the house. My job is to come in destroy his house. I don't have to build a new house, or a different house. I'm not a builder. My job is the destruction of whatever magical and beautiful thing he's trying to create. Does that make sense as to why I'm saying questions along the line of whether or not using the Bible to support slavery is irrelevant? If not, it's because it presupposes the idea that I support, even for the purpose of this discussion, the notion of slavery in some sense. And that's not reflective of my position here.

    As far as your question goes, I'll the second question you posed (as to me being a slave personally) :

    Exodus 21:16 - If you kidnap someone and force them into slavery then YOU get the death penalty. (So no compulsory slaving)
    Leviticus 25:39 - If someone sells themselves to you as a result of their poverty, you cannot treat them as a slave, and instead have to treat them as a hired hand.
    Exodus 21:2 - If They're of a shared faith/culture, you have to set them free after six years.
    Deuteronomy 15:12-14 - After that six years, he doesn't just go free, you have to supply him with food, drink, and livestock (the modern equivalent would be food and drink and means of economic sustainability).
    Exodus 21:7-11 - If a man buys a woman, he essentially has to marry her (or treat her as a wife) unless he buys her for his son, who then has to marry her and he (the purchaser) has to treat her like a daughter. If she's displeasing, they have to set her free. If SHE isn't satisfied (and take note that the passage here goes as far as to include that she isn't satisified sexually) then she AGAIN has to be set free.
    Exodus 21:26-27 - If a slave is abused/becomes disfigured, they have to be set free
    Exodus 20:10 - Slaves are to be given the Sabbath to rest and worship.
    Deuteronomy 23:15-16 - If slave flees his master, you are to find a place for him to stay and let him live there and NOT return him to his master.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If I could have you as a slave (fallowing the Bibles code of conduct of course) for a week, I am positive you would have the answer to this question.

    What of the "God given right be free and pursue happiness"
    I'm currently married. So in this instance, I'd be coming into your service voluntarily, with a family. This automatically means that you have to treat me like a hired worker and when I leave, my family comes with me. It also means that when my service is done you have to provide me with economic means to allow me to support myself so that I don't end up in a position to resort to slavery ever again. You're obligated to give me at least one day off each week. You're forbidden from abusing me (and similarly from abusing my family). And in the worst case scenario, if I decide to take my family and run, and someone decides to help us, they aren't allowed to turn us over to you.

    Would I accept that scenario? Yeah, I would. The end result any way you cut it is my family and me being free and economically better off than when I entered into your service and either you or I can terminate that service at any point (you by releasing me or me by running away). It's worth pointing out here too that by providing me with means to prevent me from relapsing into servitude, you're also helping place me in a position to behave similarly with someone else who's poverty stricken. The logical conclusion here is a system that funnily enough, if followed, actually organically abolishes slavery by removing the primary reason people sold themselves to being with. Seems a little different in that light, doesn't it?
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  6. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #86
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    342
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    As far as your question goes, I'll the second question you posed (as to me being a slave personally) :

    Exodus 21:16 - If you kidnap someone and force them into slavery then YOU get the death penalty. (So no compulsory slaving)
    Leviticus 25:39 - If someone sells themselves to you as a result of their poverty, you cannot treat them as a slave, and instead have to treat them as a hired hand.
    Exodus 21:2 - If They're of a shared faith/culture, you have to set them free after six years.
    Deuteronomy 15:12-14 - After that six years, he doesn't just go free, you have to supply him with food, drink, and livestock (the modern equivalent would be food and drink and means of economic sustainability).
    Exodus 21:7-11 - If a man buys a woman, he essentially has to marry her (or treat her as a wife) unless he buys her for his son, who then has to marry her and he (the purchaser) has to treat her like a daughter. If she's displeasing, they have to set her free. If SHE isn't satisfied (and take note that the passage here goes as far as to include that she isn't satisified sexually) then she AGAIN has to be set free.
    Exodus 21:26-27 - If a slave is abused/becomes disfigured, they have to be set free
    Exodus 20:10 - Slaves are to be given the Sabbath to rest and worship.
    Deuteronomy 23:15-16 - If slave flees his master, you are to find a place for him to stay and let him live there and NOT return him to his master.

    Sorry, the point I was trying to make was unclear. I assumed you had read the exchanges between me and Squatch in earlier posts in this thread.

    Let me give it another shot. I am not really discussing slavery in the Bible as a whole. Squatch cleared up a couple misunderstandings I had with regards to the Bible, though it pretty ended with "Slavery, as described in the Bible, was for that time and place only, and for the Jewish people.

    You have now extended that to its still good for the present

    So please allow me to rephrase my scenario to a prior post in this thread:

    A young girl just had her village attacked by a neighboring village. Every male in the village including her father is dead. She and any surviving females are taken as slaves. She has to work "6 days a week" doing the bidding of her fathers killers. If she is "evil" she can be punished. Punishment can include a "rod" being used as long as there is no permanent injury.
    Though this young girl may have been "afforded" some rights, it seems VERY unlikely she would try to avail herself of them considering she has to serve her fathers killer, since she is just a slave.
    You talk about being able to run away. Where would this young girl run to?

    If the US were to be hit with an EMP, and turned back to the stone ages in a few seconds, would the system of slavery in the Bible be ok to use today?

  8. #87
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You have now extended that to its still good for the present
    I was actually operating under the impression that everyone was treating the topic as though it had been extended to the present.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So please allow me to rephrase my scenario to a prior post in this thread:

    A young girl just had her village attacked by a neighboring village. Every male in the village including her father is dead. She and any surviving females are taken as slaves. She has to work "6 days a week" doing the bidding of her fathers killers. If she is "evil" she can be punished. Punishment can include a "rod" being used as long as there is no permanent injury.
    Though this young girl may have been "afforded" some rights, it seems VERY unlikely she would try to avail herself of them considering she has to serve her fathers killer, since she is just a slave.
    You talk about being able to run away. Where would this young girl run to?

    If the US were to be hit with an EMP, and turned back to the stone ages in a few seconds, would the system of slavery in the Bible be ok to use today?
    That's not really how it would've happened. Female and male slaves were two wholly separate things. A female slave wouldn't be taken as a work-horse, so to speak. She would've been taken as a wife, or as a wife for the captor's son. And we can look at how that would've played out scripturally as well.

    Deuteronomy 21:10-14. If you take a female as a slave, she has a full month to mourn the loss of her family, and then she becomes your wife. If you aren't happy with that arrangement, you have to set her free. No selling her, no mistreating her, you have to let her go...wherever she wishes.

    Exodus 21:10-11. If you doesn't satisfy her or you treat another wife better, then she's free.

    Basically, if we take the scenario here at face value, and she's young enough (too young to be a bride) then it would stand that the man is taking her as a future bride for his son, in which case he actually has to treat her as a daughter. If it's for himself (and provided she's old enough) he has to treat her as a wife. In either case, the woman has rights and protections that ensure she's not treated as a slave, and that she's free to leave if the environment is unpleasant. There's even laws protecting against rape and/or slandering a woman's character, IE calling her slutty.

    Sounds a lot less severe than imagined at the outset for men and women, right?
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  9. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  10. #88
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I assume you mean "mandate" as in "authorizes", correct? If that's the case, then yes, I agree with you that the Old Testament had scripture clearly outlining regulations regarding an existing institution at the time. Also, if you're using mandate as a synonym for authorize, you don't need to include the word condone since the reading of mandate makes it superfluous. It's probably why people misread it earlier in the thread.
    Thank you for agreeing with #1. Regarding your issue with the use of mandate and condone together, this is largely irrelevant, but I'll just indicate that the two words, while they are similar, have distinct meanings, which is why they are both included. Condone means to accept, allow, approve of, etc. Mandate means to provide authority for how something must be done. By explicitly mandating slavery (owning people as property), the bible implicitly condones and endorses it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Not really the crux of the issue here either. It's more informative in building a case on the problem with what appears to be your reasoning for why slavery is immoral.
    I disagree. If the bible's idea of doing no wrong allows one to do slavery, then it should not be considered as a moral guide for anyone who thinks slavery is immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I have to make this clear: I'm not claiming that slavery is moral. Nor am I claiming that the Bible states that slavery is moral. The sole purpose of my existence in this discussion is to dispute your claim that the Bible cannot be used as a moral guide given it's [as stated] lack of condemnation for the institution.
    If you wish to dispute the claim that a book which condones and mandates slavery should not be used as a moral guide by people who think slavery is immoral, then provide support for why it should.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    And that's just unecessary. Assume, for the sake of this debate, that I have ZERO understanding of what makes slavery immoral.
    I see no reason why I should assume that, since, for the sake of this debate, I'm asking the question of where you stand on slavery (owning people as property). If you stand on the side of opposition to slavery, as I assume you do, then how do you address the fact that the bible condones and mandates it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    In Philemon, Paul argues that freeing Onesimus is the right (moral) thing to do.
    Please support this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Whether it's one man's appeal or not to one man or not doesn't matter.
    When there are numerous other verses which condone and mandate slavery, then it definitely matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    All that matters there is that A: It's a part of the Bible, and B: Shows opposition to slavery.
    Again, please support your claim that Philemon contains moral opposition to slavery. All I see is one man who doesn't want his one slave friend to be a slave anymore, so he asks his other friend to not treat him as a slave anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    And C: There's no ambiguity in the text. This effectively makes a clear moral opposition contained in the Bible. Your distinction that it's "just one man" is shifting the goal posts. You went from "No clear mention at all" to "No clear mention against the entire institution"
    Please indicate where I stated "no clear mention at all" vs. "no clear mention against the entire institution", or retract your charge of shifting goalposts. It seems you're twisting my words. The OP states that the bible lacks clear moral opposition to slavery. Sorry, but I don't know on what planet "the story of this guy who didn't want his friend to be a slave anymore" = "this is the bible's moral opposition to slavery (owning people as property)", especially when 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"? That's what it means when I say the bible lacks clear moral opposition to slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Israel was designed to, while allowing slavery to exist, treat slaves as just under hired servants.
    Please support how being allowed to beat your slaves (even to death) could be considered treating them as hired servants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    From the New Testament, it becomes clear that over time Israel had kind of gotten away from slavery as a whole as I can't really recall any instances in the gospels of them ever even seeing a slave.
    First of all, this is irrelevant. If we are to take the bible as a moral guide (you know the 10 commandments, both versions, are in the OT, right?), then your claim holds no water. Second, the NT has numerous references to slavery. Jesus even refers to slaves being punished and families being sold into slavery in his parables. Add to that the fact that not a jot or tittle of the law is changed, and, well, you get the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    And we can safely say that's not because of the Romans. So at the very least, it would appear that the regulations for the slave trade in Israel had a positive impact in the short term of seeing them treated humanely, and in the long term making it more beneficial to have a hired servant than a slave.
    Could you support this with something other than your claim that there aren't any instances in the gospels of someone encountering a slave? Otherwise, this is nothing more than an assertion. Also, it does nothing to refute the fact that the bible still condones owning people as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    All I'm asking here is that you explain to me explicitly what makes owning another person wrong in and of itself.
    I don't see why you need an explanation - don't you already think owning people as property is wrong? Would you like to be owned as property?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Without that, I've got no reason to accept that you're right that slavery IS immoral
    Again, if you don't think slavery is immoral, then I don't see why this thread should be an issue for you. Do you disagree that a book which condones slavery should not be used as a moral guide by people who hold slavery as immoral?

  11. #89
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I see no reason why I should assume that, since, for the sake of this debate, I'm asking the question of where you stand on slavery (owning people as property). If you stand on the side of opposition to slavery, as I assume you do, then how do you address the fact that the bible condones and mandates it?
    Future, we are not going to be able to get anywhere here unless you provide a rationale for why owning people is morally wrong. If you cannot do that, then there is literally ZERO reason for anyone to engage you on this topic. If you won't do it, then you're torpedoing your own topic. Your OP necessitates that slavery is immoral, that owning people is immoral. That is 100% necessary for your conclusion to follow logically in the OP. If you can't provide support for the assertion that it IS immoral, then you're done. If you WON'T provide support that it's immoral, then you're done. So I'm formally issuing a Challenge to support a claim. that you provide at least ONE coherent reason for what makes slavery immoral. You know the rules here.

    If you can support the claim, we can continue, if not, consider your thread ended because the foundational pillar of your case will be gone and without it, you have no case.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  12. #90
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Future, we are not going to be able to get anywhere here unless you provide a rationale for why owning people is morally wrong.
    For the sake of debate, please refer to the rationale you already accept as your own reasons for the position that it's immoral to own people as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    If you cannot do that, then there is literally ZERO reason for anyone to engage you on this topic.
    I've already put it as clearly as can be: if someone doesn't hold that owning people as property is immoral, then this topic is a non-issue for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    If you won't do it, then you're torpedoing your own topic. Your OP necessitates that slavery is immoral, that owning people is immoral. That is 100% necessary for your conclusion to follow logically in the OP.
    If you really want to play games and pretend you don't have a moral position regarding slavery, fine. Consider the conclusion instead to be "the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by people who hold that slavery is immoral". So now the question, as always, is whether you hold that slavery (owning people as property) is immoral. Really, this insistence of yours that I have to support an assertion that you already agree with only illustrates the kind of cognitive dissonance that Xtian theists must commit to in order to continue holding to their beliefs. You're so worried about refuting a conclusion which doesn't fit with your irrational belief system that you're willing to sacrifice your humanity and question an assertion which you already accept. That's the real reason we won't get anywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    If you can't provide support for the assertion that it IS immoral, then you're done. If you WON'T provide support that it's immoral, then you're done. So I'm formally issuing a challenge that you provide at least ONE coherent reason for what makes slavery immoral. You know the rules here.
    Ok, let's say there's no reason to think that slavery is immoral. So now slavery is not immoral. Do you agree with that conclusion?

  13. #91
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    For the sake of debate, please refer to the rationale you already accept as your own reasons for the position that it's immoral to own people as property.
    Whether I believe that slavery is immoral or not is 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand because we aren't discussing my personal beliefs. We're discussing your OP which, again, states that because the bible doesn't condemn slavery (and in fact has regulations for it and allows it) automatically means that one cannot use the bible as a moral guide. Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of the thread. If you genuinely believe that slavery is immoral, then you have to have a reason for that belief. No one believes a thing "just because". All I'm asking here, and it's really simple, is for you to explain WHY you believe that slavery is immoral in order to support your opening post. This is not a difficult task. If it's purely emotive and you've never really thought about it, just say it and I'll let it go. I'm not asking a lot (I'm literally asking for the bare minimum).

    So are you going to answer the challenge that you support why slavery is immoral or are you going to retract the claim entire?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If you really want to play games and pretend you don't have a moral position regarding slavery, fine. Consider the conclusion instead to be "the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by people who hold that slavery is immoral".
    It still doesn't follow. What would be the reason for throwing out the entire thing over one part? I don't agree with every aspect of gun ownership laws, but I don't believe we should throw them out entirely. That would be dumb.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  14. #92
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Whether I believe that slavery is immoral or not is 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand because we aren't discussing my personal beliefs. We're discussing your OP which, again, states that because the bible doesn't condemn slavery (and in fact has regulations for it and allows it) automatically means that one cannot use the bible as a moral guide. Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of the thread. If you genuinely believe that slavery is immoral, then you have to have a reason for that belief. No one believes a thing "just because". All I'm asking here, and it's really simple, is for you to explain WHY you believe that slavery is immoral in order to support your opening post. This is not a difficult task. If it's purely emotive and you've never really thought about it, just say it and I'll let it go. I'm not asking a lot (I'm literally asking for the bare minimum).
    The only relevance of whether one should use the bible as a moral guide is to people who follow the bible as a moral guide who also think slavery is immoral. Whether I believe slavery is immoral is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It still doesn't follow. What would be the reason for throwing out the entire thing over one part?
    I'm not sure you understand the full implications of what you're saying here. Do you honestly think that, as a Xtian, you could fully accept that slavery is immoral, disagree with the bible's (the supposed divinely inspired book of a perfect deity) position on slavery being perfectly fine, and then continue to follow the rest of what it says based one the fact that it's the divinely inspired book of a perfect deity? Further, there's the issue of what justification you would then have to be morally against slavery when the bible isn't. This is what I mean by cognitive dissonance.

  15. #93
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,369
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You use a word as it is defined.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But again, assuming you want to debate the slavery and the bible, it seems pretty clear that using a different word for "authorize", like for example, "authorize" is what should happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It does seem this point needs to be agreed to for the debate to move forward. I didn't think owning a slave was universal in those days, so I'm guessing some people did not own slaves. So even if the Bible "commanded" it, I don't think everyone was doing it. So perhaps for just the purpose of moving the debate forward, you both could agree that say "the Bible explicitly has instructions for acquiring, keeping, and the caring for slaves, and it is the moral thing to do" or some such that would satisfy both of you.
    I tend to agree with Mican and Belthazor here. While I think the dictionary is relatively clear and that if we were to consult an English Professor at a University they would clearly settle this dispute relatively quickly, I agree that it is a relatively pedantic point, which is why I suggested moving past it way back in post 39. Either Mican or Belthazor's wording I think is more appropriate. I also suggested we take it as a given for debate more than a page ago.

    Literally everyone on the thread has been willing to move on except you Future.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    If you're not sure about something, you can check a dictionary to see how it is defined and use it that way.
    Interesting, then why do most of the debaters here think you've used it incorrectly? And why do the dictionary's editors use example sentances which do not share the inference you are gathering? No need to answer, just simple food for intellectually honest thought.
    "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.


  16. #94
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    While I think the dictionary is relatively clear and that if we were to consult an English Professor at a University they would clearly settle this dispute relatively quickly
    Right, by confirming the definition as provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I agree that it is a relatively pedantic point, which is why I suggested moving past it way back in post 39.
    You mean when you tried to disprove that the bible mandates slavery by misusing the definition of the noun, or when you mistook my statement of "allow" to mean that the word allow is in the definition of the verb mandate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Either Mican or Belthazor's wording I think is more appropriate.
    Not surprising in the least. Your opinion regarding their incorrect use of the word is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I also suggested we take it as a given for debate more than a page ago.
    Could you be a little more clear? Take what as a given? That the bible does in fact mandate slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Literally everyone on the thread has been willing to move on except you Future.
    No Squatch, literally everyone on the thread has suggested that the OP be changed to reflect their own misunderstanding of a relatively simple word, which was clearly defined even before your post 39. Bottom line, the definition was provided, and fits the OP. So again, why should it be changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Interesting, then why do most of the debaters here think you've used it incorrectly?
    Really? Mican has already agreed on the definition (#66), Belthazor said nothing specifically about my use of the verb (# 74), and Hyde has also agreed with the definition as provided (# 83). So where are these most debaters who have stated they think I've used it incorrectly?
    In any case, since the correct use has been clear enough for many a post now, how is this relevant? Do you accept the fact that the bible mandates slavery or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And why do the dictionary's editors use example sentances which do not share the inference you are gathering? No need to answer, just simple food for intellectually honest thought.
    Squatch, I've already refuted your claim that the examples use the definition you're trying to put forward. Repeating this argument without responding to that refutation is exceptionally bad form.

  17. #95
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The only relevance of whether one should use the bible as a moral guide is to people who follow the bible as a moral guide who also think slavery is immoral. Whether I believe slavery is immoral is irrelevant.
    Here's the problem, Future. Your definition (quoting post#1 here) of slavery in this thread is, "owning a person as property". There is nothing inherently moral or immoral about that. If I own a person, and I provide them food, shelter, clothes, work, care for and protect them, then what's immoral about them being my property? Or even flip it and say that someone owns me. If they do all of the above, then why is my being owned by them immoral? If I view slavery as an inherently morally neutral act that can easily, and often, lead to be a bad end for the individual owned, it doesn't necessitate the thing itself is immoral.

    And it even complicates matters further when you consider that biblically, if I owned someone and set them free, I was scripturally commanded to give them food, drink, and means for economic sustainability out of my own wealth which is basically compensation for services rendered (meaning, *gasp* they just got paid for years of service!). Without you providing an adequate reason for why slavery is immoral, there's no reason to view it as such when I can point to compensation at the end of service as a justification for it individually (and indeed it appears people volunteered or sold themselves to escape poverty), OR, point to the fact that the end result (people using it as a tool to escape poverty) as a beneficial aspect since it self abolishes and functions as an early form of redistribution of wealth in a fairly equitable manner. Honestly, the longer you resist giving me a reason to see it as immoral, the more I'm coming around to the idea that slavery, as a biblical concept, may have been a pretty good idea.

    ---------- Post added at 10:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Really? Mican has already agreed on the definition (#66), Belthazor said nothing specifically about my use of the verb (# 74), and Hyde has also agreed with the definition as provided (# 83). So where are these most debaters who have stated they think I've used it incorrectly?
    In any case, since the correct use has been clear enough for many a post now, how is this relevant? Do you accept the fact that the bible mandates slavery or not?
    Actually, per Squatch's quotes, Mican recommending you use the word "authorize", Belthazor suggesting an entirely different phrase, and I distinctly recall recommending you either drop the word condone or the word mandate because it can easily be misread. NO ONE here agrees with your phrasing in the OP. Four people discussing the issue with you and all four have had a contention with you saying "Condones and mandates". At a certain point, Future, you might want to consider that maybe the problem here isn't the four of us.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  18. #96
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Here's the problem, Future. Your definition (quoting post#1 here) of slavery in this thread is, "owning a person as property". There is nothing inherently moral or immoral about that.
    Again, if you don't think it's immoral to own another person as property, then there's no issue with you taking the bible as a moral guide. Why is this so hard for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Honestly, the longer you resist giving me a reason to see it as immoral, the more I'm coming around to the idea that slavery, as a biblical concept, may have been a pretty good idea.
    So, being allowed to beat your slave (even to death), or sell your daughter into slavery seems to you to be a good idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Actually, per Squatch's quotes, Mican recommending you use the word "authorize", Belthazor suggesting an entirely different phrase, and I distinctly recall recommending you either drop the word condone or the word mandate because it can easily be misread. NO ONE here agrees with your phrasing in the OP. Four people discussing the issue with you and all four have had a contention with you saying "Condones and mandates". At a certain point, Future, you might want to consider that maybe the problem here isn't the four of us.
    Wow, this re-defining words to suit one's own misunderstanding/stubbornness/ignorance thing is really catching on, isn't it? Now you're re-defining "using a word incorrectly" to mean "using a word that can easily be misread". Amazing.

    I'm sorry, but when Squatch insisted quite clearly that most debaters here thought I've used the word "incorrectly", I interpreted his words at their true meaning, something I've come to understand can be quite difficult at times.

    But now that you've pointed out for me how Mican recommended I use a different word, Belthazor a different phrase, and you a different combination of words, I can totally see now that those are all really just statements of people thinking I used the word incorrectly, and not statements which meant what was actually written.

  19. #97
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, if you don't think it's immoral to own another person as property, then there's no issue with you taking the bible as a moral guide. Why is this so hard for you?
    Because you insist it's immoral without providing a definition when challenged to do so and for some reason also seem to have a problem retracting the claim. Which means you're actually breaking the rules here, Future. When challenged to support a claim, you're obligated to do so or retract the claim. Failure to do one or the other is a violation of the rules. And Belthazor is a newer member here, I'm asking you rather kindly to be a positive example here and follow the rules for the benefit of the new guy.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So, being allowed to beat your slave (even to death), or sell your daughter into slavery seems to you to be a good idea?
    Those are both very misleading. Way back in Post#80 I explained that the verses go on to state that if you permanently damage the slave, you had to set him free. And that a straightforward reading of the text itself would indicate that this is to protect an owner who didn't intend for the slave to die (because if he had intended for it, he would've been executed for murder). For whatever reason, I assume oversight given my initial post was chunky, you never responded to that.

    But here's what I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by me in post 80
    Exodus 21:20-21 isn't as bad as it sounds either. Remember that there were regulations regarding punishments for slaves. 26-27 states that if a man handicaps a slave or even breaks one of his teeth that he (the slave) is to be set free. And this isn't legalese here. A layman's reading means the passage is saying "If you damage the slave in a way that's permanent, you don't get to keep that slave" A lot of passages like this from Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus take care to remind the Israelites "You guys were slaves, don't be like the Egyptians were to you" and "You guys know what it's like to be foreigners, so don't be a dick to foreigners". But the implication here appears to be that if a slave lives on for a day or two, then there's a good chance the owner killed him accidentally.
    As far as selling your daughter, I answered a question related to that in post#87, and here it is below:

    Quote Originally Posted by me in post 87
    Deuteronomy 21:10-14. If you take a female as a slave, she has a full month to mourn the loss of her family, and then she becomes your wife. If you aren't happy with that arrangement, you have to set her free. No selling her, no mistreating her, you have to let her go...wherever she wishes.

    Exodus 21:10-11. If you doesn't satisfy her or you treat another wife better, then she's free.

    Basically, if we take the scenario here at face value, and she's young enough (too young to be a bride) then it would stand that the man is taking her as a future bride for his son, in which case he actually has to treat her as a daughter. If it's for himself (and provided she's old enough) he has to treat her as a wife. In either case, the woman has rights and protections that ensure she's not treated as a slave, and that she's free to leave if the environment is unpleasant. There's even laws protecting against rape and/or slandering a woman's character, IE calling her slutty.
    Basically a woman being sold as a slave couldn't be treated as a prostitute or a piece of meat. She had to be treated with dignity or else the owner wasn't allowed to be her owner, and note that he couldn't sell her to someone else. This all amounts to: If a man bought a woman, he was buying a bride, and if he screwed that up, he was losing both the investment and the bride.

    If you still think slavery as outlined in the Bible is harsh or severe, I'd love to hear why, especially since I've already challenged you to provide a rationale for it and you refuse.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  20. #98
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    342
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Because you insist it's immoral without providing a definition when challenged to do so and for some reason also seem to have a problem retracting the claim. Which means you're actually breaking the rules here, Future. When challenged to support a claim, you're obligated to do so or retract the claim. Failure to do one or the other is a violation of the rules. And Belthazor is a newer member here, I'm asking you rather kindly to be a positive example here and follow the rules for the benefit of the new guy.

    Those are both very misleading. Way back in Post#80 I explained that the verses go on to state that if you permanently damage the slave, you had to set him free. And that a straightforward reading of the text itself would indicate that this is to protect an owner who didn't intend for the slave to die (because if he had intended for it, he would've been executed for murder). For whatever reason, I assume oversight given my initial post was chunky, you never responded to that.

    But here's what I said:



    As far as selling your daughter, I answered a question related to that in post#87, and here it is below:



    Basically a woman being sold as a slave couldn't be treated as a prostitute or a piece of meat. She had to be treated with dignity or else the owner wasn't allowed to be her owner, and note that he couldn't sell her to someone else. This all amounts to: If a man bought a woman, he was buying a bride, and if he screwed that up, he was losing both the investment and the bride.

    If you still think slavery as outlined in the Bible is harsh or severe, I'd love to hear why, especially since I've already challenged you to provide a rationale for it and you refuse.

    Ya, it sounds great. Wow, all your problems solved.
    You live life to serve another's wishes. To hell with freewill, it's highly overrated. Yes, this is the future for mankind to aspire to......

  21. #99
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Because you insist it's immoral without providing a definition when challenged to do so and for some reason also seem to have a problem retracting the claim.
    Seriously, Hyde, what is your problem? I already provided a perfectly valid alternative for you: "the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by people who hold that slavery is immoral". If you truly have such an issue with someone agreeing with you on slavery (owning people as property) without providing why, then consider that to be the OPs conclusion instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Those are both very misleading. Way back in Post#80 I explained that the verses go on to state that if you permanently damage the slave, you had to set him free.
    Disregarding the fact, for now, that it says nothing about permanent damage - just eyes and teeth - do you agree that, if the owner's beating doesn't result in any of those, there are no consequences to the owner for beating their slave according to the bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Basically a woman being sold as a slave couldn't be treated as a prostitute or a piece of meat.
    But she could still be sold as property against her will, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    If you still think slavery as outlined in the Bible
    We're not talking about how slavery is outlined in the bible vs. any other considerations. We're talking about owning people as property.
    Last edited by futureboy; October 3rd, 2017 at 07:54 AM.

  22. #100
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ya, it sounds great. Wow, all your problems solved.
    You live life to serve another's wishes. To hell with freewill, it's highly overrated. Yes, this is the future for mankind to aspire to......
    I can see the sarcasm, but if I may, let me ask you question now. You're Hittite living in Israel (a foreigner). There's a local famine that destroys your crops leaving you without food, or any product to sell. An Israelite approaches you and explains that the famine didn't hit his crops. He has a lot that needs to be harvested, and a lot of work around his property that needs done. Would you sell yourself into his service to so that you could feed your family, or would freedom still be more important?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Seriously, Hyde, what is your problem?
    ...it's that you haven't given me any framework for what makes it immoral. I've mentioned this as a problem several times now. Pretty much in every single post I've made to you in this thread. At this point I'd think the problem is more your problem than mine. I'll even childhood it by saying, "I asked you first."

    I'll even repost your OP for you and break it down so you can see WHY what I'm asking is important:

    To address slavery in the bible from a moral perspective, it is defined here as: "owning a person as property". This is not a statement of morality.

    1. The bible implicitly condones and explicitly mandates slavery.
    Some common examples:
    - Leviticus 25:44-46 states that non-Hebrew slaves are to be acquired from neighbouring nations. They, along with any children they have while enslaved, are the possessions of their masters permanently, and they are passed on to the masters' children as possessions.
    - Exodus 21:2-7 provides instructions on how male and female Hebrew slaves are to be treated.
    - Exodus 21:20-21 states that slave owners can beat their slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two. There is nothing about morality stated here either.

    2. The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery. No reason has been given for why it should or why slavery is immoral or even IF it's immoral.

    Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide. Slavery has neither been defined as moral nor has it been defined as immoral. A lack of moral opposition to a concept that has not been morally defined does not logically follow. Ergo, the OP's conclusion fails on the grounds of faulty stated premises, a smuggled premise, and conclusion that does not logically follow.

    Now then, would you care to try again or go ahead and concede?
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

 

 
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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
  •