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 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6
Results 101 to 119 of 119
  1. #101
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    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?
    And as I explained several times in this thread, (though you may not have been able to read it all...), I am only discussing about the taking of slaves at war time. A village attacks another village. The winner kills pretty much all males (of age?) and take
    the females as slaves.

    Squatch, by the way, has argued totally different than you. In that he says it's explicit that "slavery in the Bible was only for that time and only for Jews".

    Funny that you both seem Christian and have opposite views on such a basic human right.

  2. #102
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sigh ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    ...it's that you haven't given me any framework for what makes it immoral.
    I already referred you to your own framework (assuming you think slavery as defined is immoral), and provided a conclusion to suit your ridiculous rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    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.
    Again, the conclusion is that "the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by people who hold that slavery is immoral". If you really hold to what your statements that slavery has not been defined as moral and immoral, then this conclusion is not an issue for you.
    As I already conceded in post # 90: "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?"
    Do you?

  3. #103
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Right, by confirming the definition as provided.
    There are two important points to note here.

    1) Literally everyone active in this thread has been willing to use your "allow" substitution for "mandate" for the purposes of getting you back on track. I offered on the last page to accept that substitution (though I reserve the right to continue to point out that you don't mean mandate in the generally accepted manner). Belthazor offered perhaps the best method of resolution via his suggested language change. Mican also offered an excellent one. Hyde too, if I'm not mistaken, offered a middle ground.

    Yet, you've ignored all of that, frankly charitable response and insisted on this point. Why? I think it is because;

    2) You are just wrong. And I somewhat suspect that you know you are wrong, but have decided that this is the hill to die on. I've pointed out that the primary defintion offered in two dictionaries is not a permissive one. I pointed out that the editors of those dictionaries, when giving example sentences of the definition you offered, give examples of non-permissive usage (when the budget is mandated, you can't allocate money differently). Literally every member in the thread has noted that you are using the word in a non-standard manner. And, most importantly and contrary to your assertion qutoed, English professors agree that you are wrong.

    I took the liberty of contacting a few with our respective positions because it seemed no other recourse would get you back on track. I won't share their specific contact info here for privacy's sake, but am happy to PM you the full emails and share the literal email with a staff member of your choosing to verify authenticity.

    Professor One:
    You are correct, and your colleague is not. To mandate is to require, not to allow. The alternate definition you found-- " give (someone) authority to act in a certain way--" refers to the term "mandate" as it applies to a president, for example, having won the popular vote resoundingly, who'd then have a mandate to govern as s/he had promised the electorate. In that situation, the "mandate" is the president's political leverage over, for example, Congress.

    IE your usage replies to the verb usage of the noun you got so riled up about, not the usage you imply in the OP.

    Professor Two:
    The primary sense of "mandate" is "command" or "order," just like the Latin word from which it is derived (mandatum = command).

    Professor Three:
    [T]he most common usages are related to the "requirement" definition. I would expect the vast majority of readers to interpret "you are mandated to answer this email" as "you are required to answer this email."

    When using "mandate," the emphasis on requirement or granting of authority depends a lot on the context. I take it by your gmail photo that you serve or have served in the armed forces. If your CO orders you to take temporary charge of a unit for a specific detail, he has given you a mandate. That mandate is both a requirement (you better do it because he ordered you to) and a grant of authority (you now have his authority to command others in carrying out the assigned detail). So with respect to your CO, you have a requirement, and with respect to your unit, you have authority. Both of these senses are included at the same time under the term "mandate."

    So...Given that all three professors I contacted agreed with the generally held view of everyone in this thread, using a different meaning of that word is, at best, confusing, and at worst, deceptive.

    With this matter settled (unless you are going to now argue that English Professors are also wrong), perhaps we can address your unsupported claim?





    In Post 89, Mr. Hyde challenged you to support your claim of a separate moral code indicating that slavery was immoral.

    I asked you a similar question way back in post 7, again in post 12, 23, issue a formal challenge in post 32, again with a formal challenge in 39, and finally a formal challenge in 53 before we went down the mandate rabbit hole.

    So, given that support for this claim of yours has been requested several times, you need to offer that support now or retract the claim. This claim, as Hyde points out, is fundamental to your OP.






    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Squatch, by the way, has argued totally different than you. In that he says it's explicit that "slavery in the Bible was only for that time and only for Jews".
    I'm not sure this is accurate. I think Hyde and I have an incredibly similar understanding here. We both agree that the Bible isn't describing chattel slavery, but someting closer to the wage relationship within indentured servitude. We both have identical views on the vast number of ways slavery was a temporary concept. We have identical ideas (as far as its been expressed) towards the Israelite's obligations to a slave. And I don't think Hyde has said anything to indicate that he thinks these verses apply to him, today. Rather, his example is of an ancient Israelite and Hittite.
    "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. #104
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure this is accurate. I think Hyde and I have an incredibly similar understanding here. We both agree that the Bible isn't describing chattel slavery, but someting closer to the wage relationship within indentured servitude. We both have identical views on the vast number of ways slavery was a temporary concept. We have identical ideas (as far as its been expressed) towards the Israelite's obligations to a slave. And I don't think Hyde has said anything to indicate that he thinks these verses apply to him, today. Rather, his example is of an ancient Israelite and Hittite.
    Please see post #87. Hyde says he is under the impression everyone is talking about the present tense. Hyde also offered to be my slave (with his family) right now.

    Though, on the other points you two are in close agreement. I just thought the past/present difference was pretty significant

  5. #105
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,721
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And as I explained several times in this thread, (though you may not have been able to read it all...), I am only discussing about the taking of slaves at war time. A village attacks another village. The winner kills pretty much all males (of age?) and take
    the females as slaves.

    Squatch, by the way, has argued totally different than you. In that he says it's explicit that "slavery in the Bible was only for that time and only for Jews".

    Funny that you both seem Christian and have opposite views on such a basic human right.
    I actually don't have a different view than Squatch on the subject. If I've given that impression, then that's my fault. However, if you're ONLY discussing slavery as spoils of war, then you're ignoring quite a LARGE portion of the issue. But if that's all you're talking about, then does my referencing of female slaves being required to be made wife to either the captor or his son, and that both the husband and the wife have to be satisfied with the relationship, and that if they aren't, the captive wife is to be released to a place of her choosing, does all that satisfy in presenting a reality that, if followed, more than likely wouldn't be bad?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I already referred you to your own framework (assuming you think slavery as defined is immoral), and provided a conclusion to suit your ridiculous rebuttal.
    No you didn't. Your premises don't support any of the conclusions you provided. Again, without a moral definition (which you failed to provide) then any conclusion supporting any moral/immoral position is illogical as the premises don't support the conclusion. Asking me to inject my own moral framework doesn't alter the situation a single bit. What you done here, Future, as has been pointed out, is smuggle the premise that slavery is immoral (or moral if you alter it as you suggested I do). That premise, unless stated, is to be ignored. A smuggled premise is an unstated premise used to support a stated premise. This typically happens in a debate where one position has constructed an argument that does not logically follow from premise to conclusion in the absence of that hidden premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, the conclusion is that "the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by people who hold that slavery is immoral". If you really hold to what your statements that slavery has not been defined as moral and immoral, then this conclusion is not an issue for you.
    As I already conceded in post # 90: "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?"
    Do you?
    No. No I do not agree with that. Here again, you're still smuggling that premise. You even reference the smuggled premise IN the conclusion (I put it in bold) : Those people who believe that slavery is immoral, like the people who believe it is moral do not exist in the OP. They were not mentioned. Whether there are people who feel it's immoral or not is ultimately irrelevant to the fact that your conclusion, as stated in the OP, does not follow from its premises. It's a flawed OP. And the conclusion you're talking about here isn't the conclusion from the OP. The conclusion from the OP was, "Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide." It wasn't, "Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by people who believe it's immoral" or "by people from Guam" or "By people who love chili-cheese burgers." That's an alteration of the original conclusion. One that didn't come up until after five pages of debate on the topic.

    If you intention was to argue that, "The Bible doesn't oppose this thing. People who oppose that thing probably shouldn't follow the Bible" then...it still doesn't follow. You're still not establishing that the thing itself is something that ought to be opposed, or that the Bible's outlook is inferior to the individual who disagrees with it, or anything else. All you did in your OP was state that slavery means owning people, the Bible doesn't oppose owning people, and then conclude that because of that, it shouldn't be treated as a moral guide. That's it. It was simple. Elegant in its simplicity, really (I'm a big fan of brevity believe it or not, I'll skip entire threads if the OP is too long). But conclusion does not logically follow from the stated premises in the OP. Even if you're altering the conclusion to be what you're now saying it is, it still doesn't work because there's no reason to accept that one outlook is superior to another (the secular code v. the bible) in your OP. It's a blank slate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure this is accurate. I think Hyde and I have an incredibly similar understanding here. We both agree that the Bible isn't describing chattel slavery, but someting closer to the wage relationship within indentured servitude. We both have identical views on the vast number of ways slavery was a temporary concept. We have identical ideas (as far as its been expressed) towards the Israelite's obligations to a slave. And I don't think Hyde has said anything to indicate that he thinks these verses apply to him, today. Rather, his example is of an ancient Israelite and Hittite.
    Like I mentioned a page or so ago, I kind of assumed we were talking about slavery as an institution if those regulations were applied today, and it still doesn't sound like a bad shake at the stick. And it's not a leap to go from there to back here where an employer can regulate an employees behavior, to a degree, while the employee is off the clock.
    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. #106
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Please see post #87. Hyde says he is under the impression everyone is talking about the present tense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde
    Like I mentioned a page or so ago, I kind of assumed we were talking about slavery as an institution if those regulations were applied today, and it still doesn't sound like a bad shake at the stick.
    I think there might be a bit of break down around the assumptions each has about the nature of this discussion. I think that Hyde is treating the subject as if it was a given assumption for the purpose of the debate that it was allowed today more than whether he actually thinks the Biblical passages allow the taking of slaves in war today. I could be incorrect.

    That is why we, as Christians are instructed to come together to study, so that we should "lean not unto our own understanding." (Prov. 3:5). If Hyde interpretted those provisions today, I, as a brother in Christ would discuss the matter with him. That discussion doesn't imply a problem, just an opportunity for one (or both more likely) of us to learn something new.
    "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.


  7. #107
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Whether there are people who feel it's immoral or not is ultimately irrelevant to the fact that your conclusion, as stated in the OP, does not follow from its premises.
    Which is why I modified it. That you keep going back to it, ignoring the modification, is what I don't understand. I even conceded that there's no reason from the OP to think that slavery is immoral, so slavery is not immoral according to the OP. You've already replied that you don't agree with that conclusion, confirming that you don't think slavery is not immoral. So, again, what is your problem now with addressing the issue of supporting something which endorses slavery (owning people as property), while at the same time holding that slavery is immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Even if you're altering the conclusion to be what you're now saying it is, it still doesn't work because there's no reason to accept that one outlook is superior to another (the secular code v. the bible) in your OP. It's a blank slate.
    Yes, a blank slate dependent on the person's view of whether slavery is moral - hence the addition of "people who hold that slavery is immoral". Whether it truly is or isn't moral is irrelevant to the modified conclusion.

    So, yet again, for another time to repeat once more, the question goes back to whether you hold that slavery is immoral. Do you?

  8. #108
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    All right, look:

    1. There are countless sentences in the English language that, while grammatically correct, are actually utter gibberish. "I'm a married bachelor who draws square circles" or "Donald Trump has original intelligent thoughts" or "How loud is down?" or "This sentence never existed". The sentence, "There are acceptable forms of slavery" is another example of this idiocy. By definition, slavery is an abomination. Harping for six pages about how this or that form of slavery is okay is utter gibberish in a discussion about what's moral. When we ask about what's moral, we're asking about what should be. If your argument is, "Well SOMETIMES it's kiiiinda okay" then you're not talking about a moral guide.

    2. The slavery the bible describes is morally repugnant. "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." Making children of people you conquered your personal property is morally repugnant. Quibbling about their treatment does not make it any less repugnant. Saying "they treated their slaves SUPER well" still makes you a slaver and that's morally repugnant. Any infringement on someone else's freedom to establish a master/slave relationship is immoral because people being free is moral and people losing their freedom for any reason is bad.

    3. Part of why I left is because of idiotic arguments like this. Not attacking you guys, but your arguments are horrible. You guys have this tendency to randomly doubt things that are well established and proven. which is utterly dumb. If someone says "1 and 1 makes 2" and your knee-jerk reply is to ask "well how do you know the numerical representation of one thing really represents one thing" then you're either being deliberately obtuse or are the sort of person that I would get banned for describing. Knock. It. Off. There's absolutely no excuse for six pages of "DERP HOW DO U KNO SLAVERY IS BAD lulz". You don't get anything out of it except pages of gibberish.

  9. #109
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    The sentence, "There are acceptable forms of slavery" is another example of this idiocy. By definition, slavery is an abomination.
    This is just a simple appeal to emotion and bare assertion fallacy. Ignoring the context of a word is simply shallow thinking, not an argument. Simply saying it is an abomination doesn't really tell us anything, it is the online form of putting the coexist bumpersticker on your car.

    You act as if every usage of this term is exactly the same thing. Your argument is literally identical to "killing is horrible, you guys are dumb for arguing about it." There is nuance in the word killing, just as there is in the word slavery (which there isn't a hebrew word for btw, so all employees have the same word used). Acting like language has no nuance or contextual reference is just niave.

    Let me ask this, is taking on a employment contract to payoff school loans an "abomination?" Because that is covered under this word as well.
    Last edited by Squatch347; October 5th, 2017 at 01:43 PM.
    "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.


  10. #110
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,721
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Which is why I modified it. That you keep going back to it, ignoring the modification, is what I don't understand. I even conceded that there's no reason from the OP to think that slavery is immoral, so slavery is not immoral according to the OP. You've already replied that you don't agree with that conclusion, confirming that you don't think slavery is not immoral. So, again, what is your problem now with addressing the issue of supporting something which endorses slavery (owning people as property), while at the same time holding that slavery is immoral?
    Okay, for clarity sake, are the following true:

    You and I agree that the OP's original conclusion does not logically follow from its premises? If yes, then I'm willing to consider that a concession and drop it. If those were concessions, then I misread them and that's my bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So, yet again, for another time to repeat once more, the question goes back to whether you hold that slavery is immoral. Do you?
    Yes I do. I also hold that government institutions are immoral, and fast food restaurants not serving me a hamburger at 8AM when I've been up and working since 1AM on the grounds that "it's not lunch-time" it grossly immoral (IT'S LUNCH TIME TO ME, ASSHOLE!)

    I disagree, quite strongly, with pretty much any institution that places one man in authority over another. How do I reconcile that with slavery as presented in the Old Testament? I never treated it as an endorsement of slavery. I read it (the collection of texts details Israels move from slaves in Egypt to free people in a land of their own, spread across Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Joshua, 1-2 Samuel, Judges, and the policy text that is Leviticus) as narrative explaining the best measures to be taken to both ensure success as well as longevity in the land. So I didn't never read the portions of slavery as "ZOMG the bible tells you how to own slaves! This God is EVIL!" Any other reading of those text strikes me as a weird way to read them. It doesn't make sense to to me suggest that God endorses slavery when throughout those text he repeatedly reminds the Israelites, "You were slaves in Egypt" when talking about slavery and "You were foreigners while in Egypt" while talking about foreigners, and those phrases are usually placed right around a "Here's how to treat someone better than you were treated" kind of passage.

    It simply makes more sense to suggest that the God was giving them instruction on how to handle an unpleasant aspect of reality while it was still a necessity. Can you think of a reason to read it any differently?
    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

  11. #111
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is just a simple appeal to emotion and bare assertion fallacy.
    No because in this case appealing to emotion isn't really a fallacy. Also, it's up to you to prove me wrong.

    You know... just like how slavery isn't really an abomination and you shifted the burden of proof on folks earlier.

    Seriously... in one ear and out the other with you.

    Threads like this are why we can't have nice things.

    ---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------

    The point being... the point that you missed... is that there aren't throngs of people around saying, "OH, WELL, SLAVERY IS OKAY" or "MAN, IT SURE IS A MYSTERY AS TO WHETHER SLAVERY IS A GOOD OR BAD THING". We know it's a bad thing because freedom is good and taking it away is a violation of basic human decency. But you guys keep pulling these sh** arguments where you do this. Where you you randomly decide to ignore evidence or cast doubt on well established things without any sort of basis for it. "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT GIVEN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT WE ALL AGREE WORK IN THIS UNIVERSE YOU CAN'T DRAW A SQUARE CIRCLE?!" or "YOU HAVEN'T MET EVERYONE SO HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE ISN'T A MARRIED BACHELOR OUT THERE?"

    The point of debate is to examine ideas and look at their merit. The point of debate is NOT to pretend ideas have less merit than they actually do, ignore evidence, and abandon common sense. When you spend six ****ing pages trying to pretend like there are acceptable forms of slavery...

    What did you have planned next? Maybe we could get some feminists in here and you could try to convince them that most forms of rape are okay? I mean, how do we know that rape isn't wrong, right? It's only universally agreed upon to be one of the most horrific things to happen to a person (kinda like slavery) but why be smart in a debate when you can put forth an idiotic argument?

  12. #112
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,721
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    What did you have planned next? Maybe we could get some feminists in here and you could try to convince them that most forms of rape are okay?
    Well it does build character.
    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

  13. #113
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    I ask in advance that any who respond to this post do so in a civil manner. If you're going to spend a portion of your post insulting me or my argument, please don't respond. Please keep all rebuttals focused on providing a logical counter-argument.

    I think a pretty good analogy in our current world is war. There isn't much disagreement that war, in general, is a bad thing. And yet we have rules of war so it's not as bad as it might be. For instance we have rules regarding captured enemies, against certain types of weapons, and how civilians should be treated by occupying armies. These rules regarding war doesn't mean that we like war or think war is a good thing or that war is not immoral. They just mean that war is indeed a part of our current world and therefore it's better that we have rules for when war does occur.

    And I would say that that is what the rules regarding slavery in the past represent. The rules don't say that slavery is a good thing but their presence does seem to acknowledge its presence in the societies of the era that the rules were written. I'm not sure it makes a moral statement regarding slavery itself either way just like our rules regarding war does not include either a condemnation or advocation of war.

    But I should say that those rules and many other of the societal rules present in the bible don't seem to represent anything particularly Godly. As far as I can tell, it's just recording certain societal rules of the time and people are just attributing them to God. It doesn't seem particularly spiritual to me and likewise doesn't seem to have much relevance to today's society. But then there's no rule that someone who seeks to take moral guidance from the bible must abide by these rules. There are plenty of ways to interpret the bible so I don't accept the premise that any of those rules really say much of anything or should be taken seriously, even from those who are interested in biblical spirituality. So I'm not even sure that any particular rule, no matter how wrong it is, really makes the case that the bible just can't be a valid source of moral guidance. Sure, that opens the question of how does one choose which parts they accept and which parts they discard but unless one goes by the premise that every single piece must be accepted by biblical adherents as literally the word of God, that question does not invalidate one using the bible for moral guidance.

  14. #114
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Yes I do.
    And with that we're done playing games - thank you. Since you personally accept the premise - unstated/assumed or not - that owning people as property is immoral, arguing that one must support it is, to put it mildly, wholly disingenuous. As I already stated in post #90: 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. The reason for giving you the "modified" version was simply to play out your game to its inevitable conclusion and get you to openly admit that you already think owning people as property is immoral anyway, so that we could get past this nonsense of questioning and supporting whether it is.
    The point is that, even if we were to grant that it's unknown whether slavery truly is immoral, we both still consider it to be immoral anyway, which is the important part. So, since we both agree that it's immoral, we can stop playing games and have an actual conversation about the implications of the bible appearing to condone something we both agree is immoral. This is the real meat of the discussion, and ignoring it is just playing games.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I never treated it as an endorsement of slavery. I read it [ ... ] as narrative explaining the best measures to be taken to both ensure success as well as longevity in the land.
    It seems like you're saying that condoning slavery is the best measure to ensure a society's success and longevity? Could you provide support for that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It doesn't make sense to to me suggest that God endorses slavery when throughout those text he repeatedly reminds the Israelites, "You were slaves in Egypt" when talking about slavery and "You were foreigners while in Egypt" while talking about foreigners, and those phrases are usually placed right around a "Here's how to treat someone better than you were treated" kind of passage.
    So, how does that in any way refute the fact that according to the bible, slave owners could beat their slaves, even to death?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It simply makes more sense to suggest that the God was giving them instruction on how to handle an unpleasant aspect of reality while it was still a necessity. Can you think of a reason to read it any differently?
    Occam's razor provides us with a different reading (which I'd argue is the only rationally-justified reading), which is that the bible merely reflects the cultural norms which existed at the time it was written. Literally everything about the rules provided, when looked at as a whole, leads to this conclusion. Some examples: the rule about forcing a woman to marry her rapist, the rule against eating shrimp. 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"? If we actually had a book that truly was the divinely inspired moral teachings of the perfect creator of the universe, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

  15. #115
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is the real meat of the discussion, and ignoring it is just playing games.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyde
    Okay, for clarity sake, are the following true:
    If I could make a small suggestion? It seems as if both parties (myself included) are unclear on what the actual argument at play here is. Future, would you be willing to restate your premises and conclusion in the current form you are holding them? It might help to prevent this from devolving.





    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    No because in this case appealing to emotion isn't really a fallacy. Also, it's up to you to prove me wrong.
    What is there to prove wrong, you haven't made an argument. You simply showed up, made a couple of unnuanced assertions, and patted yourself on the back. Do you have a specific argument or assertion for me to "prove wrong?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhav
    You know... just like how slavery isn't really an abomination and you shifted the burden of proof on folks earlier.
    You do realize that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to support the claim right? If the OP makes a claim, it is the OP's job to support it. If you make a claim like "slavery is, by definition, an abomination" then it is your job to support it.

    Simply asking you to approach the subject with nuance and realize that language is imperfect is hardly "burden shifting."

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhav
    [/COLOR]The point being... the point that you missed... is that there aren't throngs of people around saying, "OH, WELL, SLAVERY IS OKAY" or "MAN, IT SURE IS A MYSTERY AS TO WHETHER SLAVERY IS A GOOD OR BAD THING".
    Just like there aren't hordes of people around saying "I think God doesn't exist?" Since when does the size of the population support the truth value of its claim? I'm sure you know which cognitive error that is.

    The point you missed is that you are approaching it from a 20th Century western context (how elitist of you ;-) ), and are only approaching the subject with chattel slavery in mind, equivocating it with the broader concept. But that isn't how the term is being used in the work referenced.

    Having glossed over the analogy, I'll present it again, if someone asked you "is killing an abomination?" You would ask them "in what circumstance?" Am I stopping a child murderer in the act or am I imitating John Wayne Gacey? Those are two massively different moral contexts and the context matters here.

    So when you ask "is slavery immoral?" it is important to ask what you mean. Do you mean engaging in a labor contract to pay off a debt (like agreeing to work for a set period of time for a company to pay for college)? Or do you mean being owned as chattel in perpetuity? Two massively different moral contexts there. And, as I pointed out earlier in thread, two situations the Bible treats very differently. One is permitted, one is not.
    "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. #116
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,721
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And with that we're done playing games - thank you. Since you personally accept the premise - unstated/assumed or not - that owning people as property is immoral, arguing that one must support it is, to put it mildly, wholly disingenuous. As I already stated in post #90: 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. The reason for giving you the "modified" version was simply to play out your game to its inevitable conclusion and get you to openly admit that you already think owning people as property is immoral anyway, so that we could get past this nonsense of questioning and supporting whether it is.
    The point is that, even if we were to grant that it's unknown whether slavery truly is immoral, we both still consider it to be immoral anyway, which is the important part. So, since we both agree that it's immoral, we can stop playing games and have an actual conversation about the implications of the bible appearing to condone something we both agree is immoral. This is the real meat of the discussion, and ignoring it is just playing games.
    ....and we're back to square one. Seriously. Here's a portion of our latest exchange:

    Future: I conceded that there was no reason from the OP to believe that slavery is immoral.
    Hyde: So you agree that the OP was flawed?
    Future: *ignores question and psychics the opposition's intentions and throws around veiled ad homs*

    It was literally the first part of the post and you completely dodged it. Then you'd argue that a defense of a form of slavery specific to a particular culture at a particular time and place is equivalent to sacrificing one's humanity. Psychic into the debate that I must be concerned with this grave threat to my beliefs. And assert that asking you explain your argument (IE how/why is slavery immoral) is nonsense. I'm going to ask a question here, and I want you to answer it because it's important. Please don't take this as me being an asshole or snide or anything other than genuinely curious. Do you understand what a debate is and how it works? I'm asking because if you don't, I can forgive your behavior here. But if you do, then I'm left wondering why you're engaging the way you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It seems like you're saying that condoning slavery is the best measure to ensure a society's success and longevity? Could you provide support for that?
    That's not what I was saying at all. I'll try to explain it more clearly.

    How do I reconcile that with slavery as presented in the Old Testament? I never treated it as an endorsement of slavery. I read it (the collection of texts details Israels move from slaves in Egypt to free people in a land of their own, spread across Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Joshua, 1-2 Samuel, Judges, and the policy text that is Leviticus) as narrative explaining the best measures to be taken to both ensure success as well as longevity in the land.

    What I'm saying here is that the subject of slavery as presented in those texts don't come across, when read in totality, as an endorsement of slavery. It reads as the best way for the Israelites (a people who spent 400 yrs. as slaves just before the events from Exodus through 1-2 Samuel) to settle the land of Canaan and grow to a stable country that would last. This is a more consistent understanding of the Bible in light of the many times God speaks to issue of oppression and the oppressed:

    Zechariah 7:8-10. Don't oppress widows, orphans, immigrants or the poor. Jeremiah 7:5-7. Be Just. Don't oppress the immigrants, widows, or orphans. Stop seeking false gods. Ezekiel 22:6-12. Those things God calls evil were things he prohibitted waaaaay back in Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. Amos 2:6-8. God's talking about buying and selling people as evil. As for what oppression can mean: Isaiah 14:3-6. Oppression is referenced in relation to hard service and relentless beatings. Proverbs 31:9. Defend the rights of the needy and poor. And those are just a few.

    Does that make more sense?


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So, how does that in any way refute the fact that according to the bible, slave owners could beat their slaves, even to death?
    It doesn't, because the Bible doesn't say that. If you're talking about Exodus 21:20-21, Rabbidak offered a rebuttal of that already. It can be summed up by just reading Exodus 21:12 where it says that anyone who strikes a man so that he dies will be put to death. A more reasonable reading, one that both Rabbidak and myself presented, was that the verses in question (20-21) are to protect a man legally in cases of accidental death. He meant to discipline the slave but, for whatever reason, the slave died. Verse 12 would mean that the man, having stricken another and killed him, is to be executed, but 20-21 allow for a legal protection under the presumption that the death was unintended or accidental.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Occam's razor provides us with a different reading (which I'd argue is the only rationally-justified reading), which is that the bible merely reflects the cultural norms which existed at the time it was written. Literally everything about the rules provided, when looked at as a whole, leads to this conclusion. Some examples: the rule about forcing a woman to marry her rapist, the rule against eating shrimp. 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"? If we actually had a book that truly was the divinely inspired moral teachings of the perfect creator of the universe, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
    I'd argue it doesn't. So would Ockham. in the authority of Scripture; he writes that "nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture."

    If it reflected cultural norms, it wouldn't have those rules. Those rules counter-cultural. Levitical law forbids sacrificing people, which was a cultural norm. It forbade incestuous relations, another cultural norm. Which are just two examples. I think part of the problem here is your understanding of the subject (slavery) and it's defining quality (people as property) in relation to today as opposed to how the text treating it. Would you agree, that there is a difference in how slavery is defined scripturally in the texts being discussed and cited (IE, Exodus through Samuel) and how slavery is generally perceived and defined?
    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

  17. #117
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    So, I've only received a few responses from the folks I've reached out to regarding the use of the verb "mandate", but it's enough to justify editing the wording of the OP's #1 for clarity. While at least two authorities (from those both Squatch and I have reached out to) agree that recently the meaning "give authority" has seen increased use, the overwhelming consensus is that to mandate an action means to require it be done, and not simply impose requirements on how it be done, as the OP's #1 is expressing. It's still not clear why the "give authority" definition is listed as the primary in multiple online sources, and without any indication regarding requirement, as I have been using it - I'm waiting on those sources to respond and clarify.
    In any case, the OP's #1 should henceforth be read simply as:
    1. The bible explicitly sanctions slavery.
    "Condone" has been left out due to the fact that most of the definitions imply not only that slavery is wrong - something that is oddly causing problems for some folks, but also that the action is approved of with reluctance, which the bible lacks entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Future: I conceded that there was no reason from the OP to believe that slavery is immoral.
    Hyde: So you agree that the OP was flawed?
    Future: *ignores question and psychics the opposition's intentions and throws around veiled ad homs*
    Please explain why, if you have already agreed that you think slavery (owning people as property - why do I have to keep repeating it?) is immoral, this has any relevance to the discussion I'm trying to have with you regarding the implications of how the bible sanctions slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Then you'd argue that a defense of a form of slavery specific to a particular culture at a particular time and place is equivalent to sacrificing one's humanity.
    No, again, we're not talking about different forms of slavery - why is this so hard for you? We're talking about owning people as property, which you already agreed you think is immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    And assert that asking you explain your argument (IE how/why is slavery immoral) is nonsense.
    Here we go again: By all means, consider my assertion that slavery is immoral to be inexplicable, unsupported, and merely my opinion inside the OP. So slavery is not immoral according to the OP. Yet again we come back to: do you agree with that, and do you hold the opinion that slavery is not immoral? I'm not even asking you how/why you think it's immoral - it really doesn't matter how/why you think slavery is immoral, just whether you do. That you're spending so much time and effort questioning a position with which you agree is something very strange indeed.
    I'm truly baffled whenever theists do this, but it still happens nonetheless, and I always ask: Why would you question whether slavery is immoral if you think that it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    What I'm saying here is that the subject of slavery as presented in those texts don't come across, when read in totality, as an endorsement of slavery.
    Perhaps not an endorsement, but do you deny that the verses which explicitly mention slaves/slavery contain clear instructions for how slaves are to be treated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It reads as the best way for the Israelites (a people who spent 400 yrs. as slaves just before the events from Exodus through 1-2 Samuel) to settle the land of Canaan and grow to a stable country that would last.
    Again, it seems as though you think allowing slavery is the best way for a society to conduct itself. While you go on to mention other sensible things in the bible, you failed to address the fact that slavery is explicitly sanctioned.
    Do you think slavery is ever moral, at any time, in any place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    This is a more consistent understanding of the Bible in light of the many times God speaks to issue of oppression and the oppressed
    I don't understand how any mention of opposition to oppression in any way serves to negate the fact that the bible contains clear instructions on how one should treat their slave, thus sanctioning slavery. It seems you have a funny yet convenient thing going on here, where you can simply do away with anything distasteful in the bible by claiming that you don't read it as saying those things but instead it's saying this nicer thing, then listing off a bunch of verses that say nice things but are unrelated, and then magically the bible doesn't say those bad things anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Zechariah 7:8-10. Don't oppress widows, orphans, immigrants or the poor. Jeremiah 7:5-7. Be Just. Don't oppress the immigrants, widows, or orphans. Stop seeking false gods. Ezekiel 22:6-12. Those things God calls evil were things he prohibitted waaaaay back in Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. Amos 2:6-8. God's talking about buying and selling people as evil. As for what oppression can mean: Isaiah 14:3-6. Oppression is referenced in relation to hard service and relentless beatings. Proverbs 31:9. Defend the rights of the needy and poor. And those are just a few.
    I see no clear opposition to slavery in any of that. You say God prohibited evils waaaaay back in Lev. Ex. and Deut., but do those books contain any prohibition of the evil of owning people as property?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It doesn't, because the Bible doesn't say that. If you're talking about Exodus 21:20-21, Rabbidak offered a rebuttal of that already.
    Unfortunately, your and Rabbidak's interpretation is irrelevant. The bottom line is that we have a situation where someone beats someone to death and is punished, and another situation where someone beats someone to death and isn't punished because a specific instruction that they are not to be punished in that case. That, quite simply, is what it means to be allowed to beat a slave to death.
    Even granting your interpretation, slave-owners are still allowed to physically beat their slaves.
    Further, the fact that the rule as written appears to have only the slave-owners protection in mind would not be the only issue. Based on what it says - even if it's not explicitly intended to allow slave-owners to beat slaves to death - it creates a loophole whereby a slave-owner could intentionally beat their slave to death and get away with it. The bible just says "Well, who the heck would beat their own slave to death on purpose - they'd be losing equity!" Yeah, definitely the divinely-inspired moral guide of a perfect deity...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I'd argue it doesn't. So would Ockham.
    Well damn, you should've mentioned that Occam's Razor doesn't apply if we presuppose the truth of the theistic claim! Wow, that just solves all our problems, doesn't it? My point about the only rationally-justified reading stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    If it reflected cultural norms, it wouldn't have those rules.
    Support or retract this assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Levitical law forbids sacrificing people, which was a cultural norm. It forbade incestuous relations, another cultural norm.
    Really? Were human sacrifices and incest normal practices that everyone in the culture approved of? And even if they were, what you're essentially saying is that the bible isn't the expression of the moral opinions of those who wrote it but instead is the divinely-inspired perfect teachings of a supreme being, while not providing any justification other than that you think the bible would be different if it was just the scribblings of semi-literate goat-herders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I think part of the problem here is your understanding of the subject (slavery) and it's defining quality (people as property) in relation to today as opposed to how the text treating it. Would you agree, that there is a difference in how slavery is defined scripturally in the texts being discussed and cited (IE, Exodus through Samuel) and how slavery is generally perceived and defined?
    Again, why do I have to keep repeating that we're not talking about different forms, iterations, severity, types, whatever, of slavery? We're talking - from the very beginning - about owning people as property, which you already agreed you think is immoral. Anything else is just babble.

  18. #118
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,721
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Please explain why, if you have already agreed that you think slavery (owning people as property - why do I have to keep repeating it?) is immoral, this has any relevance to the discussion I'm trying to have with you regarding the implications of how the bible sanctions slavery?
    All I was asking was if you agreed that your OP was flawed. It appears you agree that it was, but I want to make sure. All I was asking, literally all, was yes you do agree, or no you don't agree that your OP is flawed.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, again, we're not talking about different forms of slavery - why is this so hard for you? We're talking about owning people as property, which you already agreed you think is immoral.
    Because your definition of slavery is an oversimplification of slavery as presented in the Bible. Scripture presents a complex set of guidelines meant to function in the best interest of both the servant and the master, regardless of male or female, regardless of Jew or Gentile. This necessitates treating them as people, rather than as the connotations of being owned as property would allow. In other words, your given definition by default rules out the nuances of how slavery was designed to function scripturally. So when talking about owning people, seeing them as property and treating them as property (like happened in America and Europe) of course I see it as immoral. But slavery as prescribed in scripture wasn't designed to function like that, so I can't equivocate those two concepts even though both fall under the same title of slavery. It's why I argue that the concept of slavery in and of itself is amoral, and it's the execution of that concept that defines the morality of it. Think of it like sex. There's nothing moral or immoral about sticking a penis in a vagina. But if it's done without consent, then it's rape and it's immoral. If it's done with consent, then it's sex and it's okay.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Perhaps not an endorsement, but do you deny that the verses which explicitly mention slaves/slavery contain clear instructions for how slaves are to be treated?
    No I don't deny it. Never did. Never would. It's literally what those texts are talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, it seems as though you think allowing slavery is the best way for a society to conduct itself. While you go on to mention other sensible things in the bible, you failed to address the fact that slavery is explicitly sanctioned.
    Do you think slavery is ever moral, at any time, in any place?
    I want to clarify something, again. What I said was (to clarify the issue in my last post) : It reads as the best way for the Israelites (a people who spent 400 yrs. as slaves just before the events from Exodus through 1-2 Samuel) to settle the land of Canaan and grow to a stable country that would last.

    Not "A society" but "That society, at that time, in that place, under those conditions". Do I believe slavery can be moral, ever? Yeah. Given humane treatment of the servants such that they don't feel like property then yeah, I'd say it's moral. Again, the thing itself is amoral. It's the execution of it that defines its moral nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I don't understand how any mention of opposition to oppression in any way serves to negate the fact that the bible contains clear instructions on how one should treat their slave, thus sanctioning slavery. It seems you have a funny yet convenient thing going on here, where you can simply do away with anything distasteful in the bible by claiming that you don't read it as saying those things but instead it's saying this nicer thing, then listing off a bunch of verses that say nice things but are unrelated, and then magically the bible doesn't say those bad things anymore.
    Your definition of slavery has connotations with oppression. Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I see no clear opposition to slavery in any of that. You say God prohibited evils waaaaay back in Lev. Ex. and Deut., but do those books contain any prohibition of the evil of owning people as property?
    It depends on why owning someone is immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Unfortunately, your and Rabbidak's interpretation is irrelevant.
    Well that's not a very equitable way to discuss a topic, is it?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Support or retract this assertion.
    Why? You haven't answered any challenges I've had or supported anything I asked of you. So what reason do you have that I should support my assertion? Especially if my interpretation of something irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Really? Were human sacrifices and incest normal practices that everyone in the culture approved of? And even if they were, what you're essentially saying is that the bible isn't the expression of the moral opinions of those who wrote it but instead is the divinely-inspired perfect teachings of a supreme being, while not providing any justification other than that you think the bible would be different if it was just the scribblings of semi-literate goat-herders.
    Again, it seems any justification I have or could provide won't matter since you clearly don't believe an alternative to your own reading is valid.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, why do I have to keep repeating that we're not talking about different forms, iterations, severity, types, whatever, of slavery? We're talking - from the very beginning - about owning people as property, which you already agreed you think is immoral. Anything else is just babble.
    Then I guess I'm done babbling. My interpretation of the text is apparently irrelevant. The complexities of the era being discussed alongside the issue itself being discussed are irrelevant. No view other than yours matters in this thread. Is there any reason I should continue here or should I just stop and move on to something worthwhile?
    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

  19. #119
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    All I was asking was if you agreed that your OP was flawed. It appears you agree that it was, but I want to make sure. All I was asking, literally all, was yes you do agree, or no you don't agree that your OP is flawed.
    Again, this is not an issue if you don't think slavery is moral, and you already confirmed that you do hold that slavery is immoral in post #110. Now, if you want to have an honest discussion about what the bible's handling of slavery implies, given that we both agree slavery is immoral, we can stop playing games and address the meat of the issue here. Your insatiable desire to prove the OP is flawed and negate your own moral position is truly something to behold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Because your definition of slavery is an oversimplification of slavery as presented in the Bible.
    No, it really isn't. Check the definition of slavery: "the state of being a slave". Slave: "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them". This is why the OPs definition for slavery has been, since the very beginning, simply: "owning people as property".
    Since the concept of "owning people as property" is clearly presented in the bible, this is what we're discussing. If you have an issue with those definitions, then feel free to start another thread about why you think owning people as property is not always wrong because the bible allows it along with beating the slaves, even to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Scripture presents a complex set of guidelines meant to function in the best interest of both the servant and the master, regardless of male or female, regardless of Jew or Gentile. This necessitates treating them as people, rather than as the connotations of being owned as property would allow.
    I truly don't understand how people can produce such utterances in modern times - it really does give credence to the old adage of good people doing bad things requiring religion. When you're allowed to beat a person, even to death, this truly goes to the core of what it means to own them as property. Your own property is, and has always been, pretty much the only thing besides your own person that you are allowed to damage or destroy if you wish. You say that the bible's "complex set of guidelines" serve to ensure that the slaves are treated as people, rather than property, but you don't have any support for this which negates the simple fact that a slave-owner is allowed to beat his slave according to the bible's rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    In other words, your given definition by default rules out the nuances of how slavery was designed to function scripturally. So when talking about owning people, seeing them as property and treating them as property (like happened in America and Europe) of course I see it as immoral. But slavery as prescribed in scripture wasn't designed to function like that, so I can't equivocate those two concepts even though both fall under the same title of slavery.
    Again, being allowed to damage (beat) your property is a core principle of what it means to have property. This is why the OP handles slavery at its very core of simply "owning people as property". Your claim of nuances in the bible doesn't negate the fact that a slave-owner is allowed to beat his slave, even to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It's why I argue that the concept of slavery in and of itself is amoral, and it's the execution of that concept that defines the morality of it.
    So you retract your answer in post #110 that you hold owning people as property is immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Think of it like sex. There's nothing moral or immoral about sticking a penis in a vagina. But if it's done without consent, then it's rape and it's immoral. If it's done with consent, then it's sex and it's okay.
    While I agree with you that doing sex without consent is immoral, the reason we hold that position is because doing most things to someone without their consent is immoral, except in the cases where we can justify it according to our other moral positions. Your comparison simply doesn't make sense. With regard to slavery, it's not a progression of conclusions where "doing this is fine, but doing this without the other's consent is not fine". It's simply "owning people as property is not fine". If you agree with that, then we can have a discussion about what it means for the bible to be fine with that. If you don't, then thanks for playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    No I don't deny it. Never did. Never would. It's literally what those texts are talking about.
    Then you're fine with OP #1, that the bible explicitly sanctions slavery as defined? Please confirm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Not "A society" but "That society, at that time, in that place, under those conditions". Do I believe slavery can be moral, ever? Yeah.
    So, just to clarify, you don't think slavery is always immoral, anytime, anywhere?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Given humane treatment of the servants such that they don't feel like property then yeah, I'd say it's moral.
    In what universe does being beaten make one feel like they're not property and that they're being treated humanely?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Your definition of slavery has connotations with oppression. Do you agree?
    Based on the definitions of slavery and oppression ("prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control"), no. It's apparently not cruel or unjust treatment according to the bible. Also, I should point out the simple logical issue that you can't possibly oppress someone which you own as property and are allowed to beat, even to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It depends on why owning someone is immoral.
    No, it really doesn't. It's a simple yes/no question: Do the books of Lev., Ex., or Deut. contain any prohibition of owning people as property? Also, do you agree that the portion of your post I was responding to doesn't contain any clear opposition to slavery? Please confirm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Well that's not a very equitable way to discuss a topic, is it?
    I'm not sure what you mean, since I went on to explain at length why your interpretations are irrelevant. If you're just going to make a complaint about something without addressing the full content, then why bother making any response at all to any portion of that part of my post?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Why? You haven't answered any challenges I've had or supported anything I asked of you. So what reason do you have that I should support my assertion? Especially if my interpretation of something irrelevant.
    Your comparison isn't valid since I wasn't asking you to support or retract something with which we both (according to post #11) agree. So do you retract your assertion that, if the bible really was just the opinions of the people who wrote it and not divinely-inspired, it wouldn't contain what it does? Please confirm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Again, it seems any justification I have or could provide won't matter since you clearly don't believe an alternative to your own reading is valid.
    So do you retract your claim that human sacrifice and incest were normal practices that were approved of by the culture and time in which the books were written? Please confirm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Then I guess I'm done babbling.
    I do wish you would be so that we can have an actual discussion about what it means for the bible to sanction slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    My interpretation of the text is apparently irrelevant.
    Regarding your interpretation of why the bible allows slave-owners to beat their slaves to death, yes, that's irrelevant, for the reasons I explained in my last post, which you ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    The complexities of the era being discussed alongside the issue itself being discussed are irrelevant.
    Yes, since the OP is quite clear and simple. If you think the "complexities of the era" somehow makes owning people as property perfectly fine, then thanks for playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    No view other than yours matters in this thread.
    If "matters" here means "is rationally justified", then I'd say others' views here definitely "matter", but yours simply don't fit that criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Is there any reason I should continue here or should I just stop and move on to something worthwhile?
    I you have no interest in honestly discussing the implications of the bible sanctioning something which we both (not sure here, since you seem to be flip-flopping on your position) find immoral, then of course you won't find this thread worthwhile - I don't know why you thought you would.

 

 
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6

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
  •