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

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

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

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 71
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No worries, but just to clarify my point, all of the 33 or so examples I gave applied to non-hebrews born in to slavery.

    We are discussing the Old Testament in particular, which is establishing the laws and rules of Israel. It sets up law courts and tribunals to adjudicate disputes or claims arising under biblical law. If, for example, I was a non-Hebrew slave and you had me pull a heavy cart, I had the right to appeal to a Rabbinical Court for redress under the law established in the Torah.
    (I just don't have time to respond to your whole post, so please take my short posts when I can)

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

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We are discussing the Old Testament in particular, which is establishing the laws and rules of Israel. It sets up law courts and tribunals to adjudicate disputes or claims arising under biblical law. If, for example, I was a non-Hebrew slave and you had me pull a heavy cart, I had the right to appeal to a Rabbinical Court for redress under the law established in the Torah.
    Actually we are not discussing that. We are using the Bible itself as a "moral guide", not how it was subjectively used.

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

    Lev 25:46

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This was my own poetic license. You are correct that you did not say absolute libertine freedom, it was a rhetorical flourish on my part. Rather, I was pointing out that I think you are overly minimizing the difference and the level of liberty bondmen had in Ancient Israel.
    Very cool. I like a sense humor

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

    I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

  3. #43
    Administrator

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

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

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

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

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Hmmmm. I don't know a cute name/word for my beliefs.......and I'm not sure why it really matters. It may change the way you approach me, but it shouldn't change the truth of the argument.
    I will say, I am talking honestly, with 0 ulterior motives other than to learn.

    No, you are not really in the "chain of actions" in this case, unless you chose to be (from a strictly moral standpoint...).
    (did that help form my personal position
    You are absolutely right that it doesn't affect the truth of the argument, but I've found that understanding the "language" of the listener is important in communication. I want to make sure I'm not talking past you as it were because then we both just get frustrated and the discussion goes down hill.



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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why should I take your "it obviously means x" over the commentaries of respected and learned Priests, Rabbis, and Preachers?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WHY?

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

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

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

    AND BECAUSE

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

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

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

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

    Is that correct?

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well that explains the word secular obviously, but it doesn’t really offer any insight into what you mean by the term. What “people?” Two people? A nation-state? All of humanity?
    That's irrelevant. The definition explains the usage of the combination of "secular", "moral", and "system". Picture people coming together - any number - and dealing with morality outside religious traditions. The discussions, conclusions, goals, and assessments are all part of that secular moral system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And in what realm or vehicle do they create that system or code? You seem to indicate it was the law. If so, does that mean there was no prohibition before the law? IE it wasn’t immoral before the law was passed?
    I'm not sure what you mean by realm or vehicle, or why this is relevant. A secular moral system happens when people deal with morality outside of religious traditions. This can happen in many different ways, such as people working to change the laws to better fit the objective moral conclusions they've reached, or by organizing to prevent an outcome which has been objectively identified as not aligning with the goals of the moral system.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So, to review, the law does not contain all elements of the moral system nor does the law only contain elements from the moral system. This seems to be at odds with your support earlier.
    What elements of the moral system are you referring to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We know it violates the system because a lot of people say it does? http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html
    Your link is banned, but I see what you're getting at. In any case, this is not an appeal to popularity. The original text: "our contemporary secular morality considers owning people as property to be immoral, which is evidenced by the fact that contemporary people in many places have worked to establish organizations and laws against it (the 13th amendment comes to mind)". Saying that's an appeal to popularity is like saying the statement "getting the puck in the net is the desired goal of hockey players, which is evidenced by the fact that hockey players try to get the puck in the net" is an appeal to popularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise though, that opposition is often opposed. There are secular groups opposing abortion, gay marriage, immigration, trade, taxes, intervention, non-intervention, proliferation, pacifism, etc. The presence of opposition is hardly a good measure of what is or is not part of a secular moral system. It only measures that we don’t agree on what is moral and what isn’t.
    The opposition, debates, back-and-forth, is simply another representation of the secular moral system at work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) That the secular moral system has greatly increased in its recognition an implementation. You would need specific data to support this claim showing that a larger set of people now support a specific moral code/system than have done previously.
    Well, for one, there's overwhelming statistics which I'm sure you're aware of that show that religiosity has been steadily declining over the past generations. While there aren't any surveys which have specifically asked sets of people which specific moral system they support as you seem to require, the evidence shows that secularism is on the rise. I'm also sure you're aware of the statistics showing the proportional relationship between the level of religiosity in a country and it's crime rates.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) And that whatever this moral code/system is, it is based on objective observations (it might help to define that term, since observations are, by definition, subjective).
    The act of observing is subjective, but we can establish that the things which have been observed or measured don't require interpretation and can be treated as objective facts. When doing science, observations are treated as objective when interpretation is limited to conform to standard uniform conventions.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Careful here, you are confusing people’s acceptance of a fact with whether it is a fact. The earth revolved around the sun even when no one thought it did. Because you don’t accept that a certain moral code is valid isn’t proof that it isn’t.
    No. You defined "objective moral code" as "moral duties and obligations are objectively true". We have no demonstration of the existence of any objectively true moral duties or obligations.

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, you conflate warrant with structure here. You’ve offered no support that the system (which so far is just a set of pronouncements too, “x is wrong”) is objective.
    I never claimed that the system is objective, but that since it can be used to make objective assessments about morality, it's the closest thing we have to an objective system. It's not just a set of pronouncements. The definition was already offered for "secular moral system": "what happens when people deal with morality outside religious traditions".

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And even if we were to accept it as objective, that doesn’t answer the fundamental objection here. How do we know it is better? Eugenics was a pretty objective system as well, it doesn’t make it better, right?
    Eugenics was not a moral system, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that since there were proponents of Eugenics in the past, that a secular moral system is inherently worse than the claimed objective moral pronouncements?

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’ve offered support that it is labor that is owned, because the fundamental essence of something (like land) cannot be owned by anyone other than God (Lev. 25).
    This doesn't refute the fact that Lev. 25:45 clearly indicates people are property.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is different than other forms of “slavery” including debt servitude, penal servitude, contracted labor, etc.
    Hopefully, it will make a little bit of more sense why I’m drawing the distinction I am (even if you don’t agree with it). Chattel Slavery, the type of slavery we have outlawed in the US is a different concept than debt servitude, penal servitude, contracted labor, etc.
    Again, this is all quite irrelevant to the fact that the bible condones and mandates slavery (owning people as property).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    By this reasoning no one should ever be able to say “their labor” because we too use that term as a verb. Except..when we use it as a noun by making it the object of a sentence. Which is why your understanding of a specific word, absent the grammar, is incorrect here. You fail to understand how the Hebrew is being composed, and how word order matters in Hebrew. But hey, I’m sure all the links on Hebrew grammar and commentaries are wrong, and that you got it right.
    This is all irrelevant to the fact that Lev. 25:45 specifically refers to people being owned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is simply reasserting the claim you made originally with no defense. It is, as many debaters here are fond of saying, a “nu-uh” response. You offer no direct support for your claim that the Hebrew structure mandates that reading. Can you offer any outside support outside from your plain text reading?
    Provided in post #31:
    Second, even if I accepted your claim that Lev 25:46 states ownership of labour and not people (which I don't), we need only look to the previous passage (Lev 25:45), where we again have 'achuzzah regarding ownership of possessions, but no 'abad for labour - instead there is ben (son or child), towshab (strangers/residents) and mishpachah (family). That's because this passage is, like the others, referring to the ownership ('achuzzah) of people, and not their labour.

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I already supported it in post 32. Again, look at your own argument here for the incoherence. You both state that one “can’t own a verb” and then say the most logical translation of the verse is that it means they are owning the verb (to serve).
    I don't recall saying that the most logical translation is that they're owning the verb. Please indicate where I said this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather, it makes far more sense given the Hebrew word order that the object (‘abad) of the verb is the labor being done, not the person. As I pointed out there is no ‘el-leh pronoun, a requirement in Hebrew if you are calling back to a noun from an earlier part of the sentence (el-leh is specifically required when referring back to a person).
    With the prevalence of 'abad being used to mean "servants", the lack of 'el-leh is not an issue. Lev 25:45 clearly refers to the people which are possessions, and then Lev 25:46 refers to them as servants which are inherited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We can further add to it the explanation from the Talmud I linked in my last response to you noting that bondmen were in the legal category of “non-movables” like land. That you can’t own the land, but only the products of the land. This further clarifies why ‘achuzzah is present rather than el-leh because it is the possession (‘achuzzah] that is being owned, not the person (el-leh) just as it is used in other sections of the Bible to refer to the products of the land or of labor rather than the land itself or the laborers.
    Again, the Talmud is irrelevant to whether the bible should be consideres as a moral guide. Also, the use of 'achuzzah in Lev 25:45 is specifically for people, as explained in post #31:
    Second, even if I accepted your claim that Lev 25:46 states ownership of labour and not people (which I don't), we need only look to the previous passage (Lev 25:45), where we again have 'achuzzah regarding ownership of possessions, but no 'abad for labour - instead there is ben (son or child), towshab (strangers/residents) and mishpachah (family). That's because this passage is, like the others, referring to the ownership ('achuzzah) of people, and not their labour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is an interesting way to phrase it. What you are essentially saying is that you don’t take my explanation, nor the explanation of several commentators, nor the interpretation by the Talmud (the definitive book on Jewish interpretation of the Torah), rather you only accept your own, personal, plain text reading.
    First, it's not a personal reading, it's what the translated text says. Second, I don't see a problem with the commentators, since most of them appear to be also reading what the text actually says.
    Ellicott's Commentary: "(45) And they shall be your possession. These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property. (46) And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children. That is, they may appropriate them to themselves, as their personal property, which is transmissible as inheritance to posterity with the family land."
    Barne's notes: "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom (Genesis 17:12.)"
    George Haydock's Catholic commentary: "Servants, or slaves, whom you may treat with greater severity than the Hebrews, and keep for ever, even though they may have embraced the true faith."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ahh, careful. What you mean is, “future’s reading of all the translations.” You are simply incorrect about the interpretations as I’ve already shown in the links to Biblical Commentaries and Talmudic passages earlier.
    Again, it's not a "reading of the translations", it's what the text says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Actually, you are incorrect here. The Bible allows for manumission, which is the point. Plenty of slave systems, including in places in the American South or Rome had no such provisions. If a master freed a slave he was only free as long as he wasn’t caught by someone else. That the Bible allows the master to free the slave is the point.
    Are you saying that American slave-owners could not manumit their slaves if they wanted to? That was the point: if we're just talking about simple manumission, then the fact that the bible allows slave-owners to manumit their slaves is irrelevant to the fact that the bible does allow for (mandates) permanent ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Moving the goal post fallacy. First, you have no reason or authority to limit Christian use of the Talmud to understand verses in the Old Testament. Christian scholars have often cited and referenced the Talmud to understand Jewish thinking and context.
    I gave you sufficient reasons: "We're talking about Christians, not Jews, using the christian bible, not the Talmud or Torah, as a moral guide. They have to live with the bible as it is available to them."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Second, that we are only referring to Christians is your new invention. You put no such distinction in the OP or at any point up until this evidence was presented. It is disingenuous to try to limit the field of evidence because it doesn’t like what you are saying.
    The OP clearly refers to the bible being used as a moral guide. If you're claiming that the bible plus the talmud must be used as a moral guide, then that's a different debate. Feel free to start one in a separate thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Congrats on the Cherry Picking fallacy. You’ll note that in several places I’ve cited the Talmud as noting that almost any damage done to the body, including abrasions, can count as permanent damage. I’m more than happy to change it to say “permanent injury” if you will concede that that clause in the context of the verse includes everything down to abrasions as supported. Agreed?
    Again, the Talmud is irrelevant to what the bible says must happen when a slave-owner beats their slave.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you’ll concede that a slave can be redeemed by a price, and that a slave can earn wages, but not that a slave can use those wages to be redeemed? That is a pretty silly line in the sand to draw, especially given the clear Talmudic references to slaves being freed in this way from times going back to Ancient Israel.
    I was simply pointing out that nothing in the biblical passages you referenced in #5 indicated that the slave's wages could purchase their freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, I’ve already shown that you are incorrect in your assumption that a master could beat a slave to death, note my response to Belthazor on that subject: The verses you are referencing are in in Exodus and Deuteronomy. They say that if a master kills a slave within a day, the master will be put to death as any murderer is. If, however, the slave doesn't die within a day, it is 'presumed' the slave didn't die from the beating. Just as with our law codes, a presumption isn't a guarantee. Jewish courts were still obligated to review the case, they just did so with the presumption of innocence in that scenario (just as we do today). So there was no mandate for "no punishment," but rather a mandate for an investigation, which seems relatively reasonable.
    This is all irrelevant to the fact that if the slave only dies after a day or two of the beating, the master is not punished. That's what it means to be allowed to beat a slave to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If the slave doesn't die at all, but has a permanent injury, he was freed by the court. The owner was likewise obligated (as I showed in my last post to future) to pay him a debt to compensate for the injury and in some cases to pay a fine to the court.
    This is irrelevant. We're not talking about "if the slave doesn't die at all", we're talking about the slave dying after a day or two, and the master not being punished for beating the slave to death.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Read that section in its context and you’ll note the verse is calling upon a master to appoint only the appropriate workload to a slave. You are bound to treat a slave as a brother or, even as you treat yourself. Hardly the picture you were painting at all.
    So you agree that this passage doesn't mention manumission at all. Thank you.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise, you took several of your sections without quoting even the full sentence, which is incredibly disingenuous. Punishment isn’t just meted out for slaves randomly, it is there for wiked slaves, those how have done evil.
    First, I only took three sections. Second, I quoted the full sentences for each section. Third, nothing about the way I quoted the sections indicates that I was saying that punishment was meted out randomly - please note that I even included the requirement clause for when the punishment should be meted out. Incredibly disingenuous, indeed. In any case, the point is that the slaves are treated like property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And as I pointed out above, the slave had the right to leave, and could not be returned if they escaped as the last verse points out.
    And the slave-owner had the right to go and find them.

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are simply repeating your claim without evidence. Please support that the verse is actually referring to the person, not the labor rather than that you read the verse as making that implication.
    It's not a claim, it's what the verse says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are correct, it was post 26, where you make the initial claim. “Ex 21:21 clearly refers to the slave as the property, not the slave’s labour.”
    This was not the initial claim. As I already explained in post #26:
    OP: The bible condones owning people as property which is supported by Lev 25:44-46.
    You: [Owning people as property] is a concept not present in the Hebrew Bible … show where the Bible says that a master owns the person, rather than owns their labor.
    Me: Ex 21:20-21 and Deut 20:14. Where does it say the labour is owned as property?

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    To mandate is to require something. It is an official requirement to perform a certain action: an authoritative command; especially a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
    The OP uses the verb, not the noun. You provided the 1st definition of the noun.
    Here is the definition of the verb to mandate: "to give (someone) authority to act in a certain way."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In case you feel like furthering this pedantic point. You need to support your point, “allow is literally in the definition of mandate.” The definition you offered does not have the word allow anywhere in it.
    The verb allow: "give (someone) permission to do something"
    Some useful synonyms: approve, authorize, empower, endorse, sanction
    Therefore, to “allow” or give authority to do something is literally the definition of “mandate”.

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

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  7. #47
    Registered User

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

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Hi ODN,

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

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

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

    IMHO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  8. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

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

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


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

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

    [I typed the quote.]

  9. #49
    Registered User

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

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    BTW,

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

    So why would the Bible make an exception here?

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

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

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

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

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

  10. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

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

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


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

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps I could be the owner??



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

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

    [I typed the quote.]

    Hello

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

    How does this support it's moral truth?

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    BTW,

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    BTW,

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

    So why would the Bible make an exception here?

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

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

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

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

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

  12. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    [/COLOR]

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

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


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

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

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

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

  13. #53
    Administrator

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

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    That's irrelevant. The definition explains the usage of the combination of "secular", "moral", and "system". Picture people coming together - any number - and dealing with morality outside religious traditions. The discussions, conclusions, goals, and assessments are all part of that secular moral system.
    So any number of people coming together and dealing with morality outside of a religious system constitutes our shared moral system? So when NAMBLA came together and discussed and concluded that sexual activity between adults and children was a moral goal, that would be part of our secular moral system under your definition, right?

    If not, why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    I'm not sure what you mean by realm or vehicle, or why this is relevant. A secular moral system happens when people deal with morality outside of religious traditions. This can happen in many different ways, such as people working to change the laws to better fit the objective moral conclusions they've reached, or by organizing to prevent an outcome which has been objectively identified as not aligning with the goals of the moral system.
    It is relevant because it goes to our access to knowing what is part of that moral system. If we are going to evaluate this moral system both from what it supposedly contains and its alleged moral superiority, we need to know where to find its values.

    Your premise would seem to be that any effort or action outside of a religious context constitutes the workings of a secular moral system, is that correct?

    Your last clause is also interesting. How do we “objectively identify” the goals of this moral system? How were they objectively identified? This seems contradictory to your first response where you indicate that it is the actions of people coming together, clearly different groups of these people could have contradictory goals, and more importantly, a group of people coming together to set a goal is, by definition, subjective, not objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    What elements of the moral system are you referring to?
    Well giving your definition above, there are many goals that secular groups have come together to discuss and advocate for that aren’t contained in the law. If one of the definitions you offered was them coming together to change the law (amongst other things), then we have to acknowledge that the law can be out of step with our current secular moral code, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Your link is banned, but I see what you're getting at. In any case, this is not an appeal to popularity. The original text: "our contemporary secular morality considers owning people as property to be immoral, which is evidenced by the fact that contemporary people in many places have worked to establish organizations and laws against it (the 13th amendment comes to mind)". Saying that's an appeal to popularity is like saying the statement "getting the puck in the net is the desired goal of hockey players, which is evidenced by the fact that hockey players try to get the puck in the net" is an appeal to popularity.
    Yes, sadly there are a lot of anti-Semitic groups that have a desire to shut down Nizkor (a site that defends that the Holocaust was, in fact, historical).

    Your analogy isn’t quite correct either. If someone were arguing that the goal of hockey is to get the puck in the net as evidenced by the fact that a lot of hockey players try to do that, then that would be an appeal to popularity fallacy. If, rather, they said the goal of hockey is to get the puck in the net as evidenced by the fact that hockey players try to get the puck in the net, that would be an appeal to their expertise, which isn’t a fallacy (since they do have an expertise in the game).

    I think if we look at the actual definition for an appeal to popularity, you’ll see why your original point that we know action x is wrong because “contemporary people in many places have worked to establish organizations and laws against it” is an appeal to popularity fallacy:

    The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
    1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
    2. Therefore X is true.
    The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
    It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
    This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
    This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.
    Link from last post

    I’d add also the text for the appeal to common practice fallacy too since you seem to be almost exactly referencing that flavor of fallacy in your argument:


    Description of Appeal to Common Practice
    The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
    1. X is a common action.
    2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
    The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

    There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:
    1. Most people do X.
    2. Therefore X is morally correct.
    would not be a fallacy. This would however entail some odd results. For example, imagine that there are only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one's view simply by eliminating those who disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The opposition, debates, back-and-forth, is simply another representation of the secular moral system at work.
    Ok, if true, how do we know the proposition, “Action X violates the goals of our secular moral system” to be true?

    How can I know that, say adults having sex with children, violates our secular moral system if there are groups advocating against it and groups advocating for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Well, for one, there's overwhelming statistics which I'm sure you're aware of that show that religiosity has been steadily declining over the past generations. While there aren't any surveys which have specifically asked sets of people which specific moral system they support as you seem to require, the evidence shows that secularism is on the rise.
    This is a bare assertion fallacy. Do you have evidence of these claims? The only surveys I’m aware of are the ones that indicate people are less denominational. Atheistic belief seems to be steady or declining the last time I checked. Regardless, their belief structure is a different claim than the one you are arguing.
    Do you have evidence that the secular moral system is “greatly more” subscribed to now? If not, you would need to retract that claim. Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The act of observing is subjective, but we can establish that the things which have been observed or measured don't require interpretation and can be treated as objective facts.
    This doesn’t support the claim. You need to offer support that whatever the moral code/system is, it is based on objective observations. Please support or retract that claim. Challenge to support a claim.

    I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but the status of the code as objective or subjective is critical to your argument. If the code is, in fact, subjective, your argument for its superiority is fallacious and the structure of your OP falls apart.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The fact that owning people as property goes against the goals set by the moral system.
    I get that you are making that claim, but I asked you to support how you know that fact. Can you offer support that that claim is, indeed, a fact? Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No. You defined "objective moral code" as "moral duties and obligations are objectively true". We have no demonstration of the existence of any objectively true moral duties or obligations.
    You are still confusing whether people accept an objective, factual claim as true with whether it is an objective, factual claim or not.

    Is this statement a factual claim? “The sun revolves around the earth.”

    Yes, of course it is. It can be wrong, but it is still an objective, factual claim.

    Further you are committing a bit of an argument from ignorance fallacy here. Because an objective moral code hasn’t been proven to be true (a claim you haven’t supported) doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I didn't claim that the system itself is objective, merely that the assessments which are made within it are objective.
    Well that is a bit different. Individual elements within the system being objective aren’t really relevant. What is relevant, and necessary, to your argument is that the output of that system is objective. IE when your system says “murder is wrong” is it making that statement as a “it is wrong for everyone, for all time, regardless of individual opinions” or as a “we have determined that it is goes against our values?”

    Which statement is closer to how the system you imagine works?


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Please indicate where I stated this. Also, how are you defining "real insight"? I don't recall using those words. On what basis are you deciding that your a) and b) are the requirements which determine what that "real insight" is?
    My last statement was that you just stated that the laws do not comport to the moral code. They both do not contain the entirety of the moral obligations nor only contain elements from the moral system.

    I determined those as the criteria for “real insight” because I am using the basic rules for comparing two groups.

    For example. Would I say “I understand Literature because I’ve read the collected works of Shakespeare?” Of course not, Shakespeare isn’t anything like the whole body of literature. Shakespeare also contains elements of poetry rather than literature.

    In order to understand what my reading of Shakespeare contributes to my understanding of literature, I need to understand a lot more about what the body of literature is, and which parts of Shakespeare contribute to it.

    Likewise here, if we are going to say that the laws are some kind of evidence of the existence of a moral pronouncement, we need to understand what part of your moral system is reflected in the laws and what part isn’t. Likewise, what part of the law come from places other than your moral system, etc.

    You need to offer a lot more detail if you are going to support, as you claim, that it violates “our” secular moral code.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Because it is against the goals set by our system. The people using and participating in the system are represented by "our".
    I get that you claim that it does, but given the broad array of possible goals being set by that system, do you have any support that this is an uncontested goal? IE are there no groups coming together outside of a religious context that disagree with that goal?

    And interestingly, are you saying that your moral code only applies to those who choose to adopt it? If so, you would agree that it is a definitionally subjective system then, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I never claimed that the system is objective, but that since it can be used to make objective assessments about morality
    How can it be used to make objective assessments? Can you give an example of an objective assessment?
    For example, a group of people coming together, outside a religious context, to declare that X is wrong, isn’t an objective assessment. You could argue that X goes against their moral decision is objective, sure, but that isn’t an objective assessment about morality, it is an objective assessment about their subjective position on morality.
    Jan doesn’t like strawberry ice cream is an objective statement too, but it doesn’t mean Jan’s distaste for strawberry ice cream is objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    That's all part of the system.
    Then you are stating that your system is subjective by definition. If the moral assessments generated by the system are defined as dependent on who the people in that system are, it is definitionally subjective, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Eugenics was not a moral system, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that since there were proponents of Eugenics in the past, that a secular moral system is inherently worse than the claimed objective moral pronouncements?
    Actually eugenics was a moral system. Its fundamental tenant was that people who don’t produce enough don’t deserve to live. That is a moral pronouncement. The belief that a society should exterminate unproductive people to make itself better is absolutely a moral system. Eugenics held, at its core, the assertion that it was wrong to let “undesirables” procreate. That is indisputably a moral claim.

    I’m saying that we can’t take the superiority of any given moral system for granted. Your argument makes that assertion with no support. What reason or argument or support do you have to say that this moral system is better than any other?

    Eugenics made some objective moral claims as well. “People who make less than a living wage are parasites and don’t deserve to live.” I would imagine that you would argue your system is morally superior to that system. Fair enough, but why? What defense do you have to make that comparison. It can’t be simply that there are (possibly) some objective facts used in there somewhere, Eugenics had that as well. So what is it? What reason do you have to claim this secular system is superior?




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    You asked why take "Belthazor's read"????............um cause it makes sense, needs no other authors, explanations, or stretches of definitions.
    I really do sympathize with this argument. But sometimes we need to be careful of what our perceptions tell us as they process raw data through the whole host of mental cognitions and biases that we process it through (which is why point three below happens). Is the dress white or blue?




    We need context to go beyond our mental processing heuristics.

    This becomes even more apparent here;



    Sometimes an answer seems obvious, but we should always be open to considering outside and additional information in our pursuit of warrant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Pretty sure what I was forwarding is the "Bible" is what Christians are forwarding as truth, without having to read any other source for God's true word.

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

    WHY?
    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I gave you sufficient reasons: "We're talking about Christians, not Jews, using the christian bible, not the Talmud or Torah, as a moral guide. They have to live with the bible as it is available to them."

    The OP clearly refers to the bible being used as a moral guide. If you're claiming that the bible plus the talmud must be used as a moral guide, then that's a different debate. Feel free to start one in a separate thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Where in the Bible does it say that you need to read other sources to understand it?
    I combined both of your objections to outside sources into a single response. There are three primary reasons we should reference outside sources like commentaries, Strong’s Concordance, and the Talmud (for the record future, the Torah isn’t an outside source, it is part of the Christian Bible).

    1) The Bible instructs us to do so. Thus, if we are arguing about what the Bible says, we are already internally instructed to consult others and learned opinions. This is why we’ve seen both Jews and Christians do this almost constantly throughout history from the very beginning of the Church in Judea and Greece. We have commentaries dating to the first century AD, why there are clarifying synods about once a decade for 200 years after Christ’s death. Why St. Augustine wrote several voluminous commentaries and elaborations. And why we have literally hundreds of books and sites with Biblical study tools or compilations of the most influential.

    Future brought up that the OP was about how Christians read the Bible (though that wasn’t actually in the OP). Well, they generally do it with commentaries because we believe the Bible instructs us to “listen to advice and accept discipline, and at the end you will be counted among the wise.” (Proverbs 19:20). Both Christians and Jews are instructed that “though it cost all you have, get understanding.” (Proverbs 4:7) or to “buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.”

    This is specifically about our understanding of God and His will and we are warned, “the way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”


    a) We have examples of exactly this in both the Old and New Testaments. For example, when Paul argues with Greek philosophers in the agora in Acts 17, he specifically references their arguments and quotes their founders. He cites both epicurean and stoic philosophers in his response on what the Gospel says.


    b) In both this story and in 1 Corinthians, Paul answers the question, “how do we know if this wisdom is of God?” (The fact that they ask the question tells you that it was widely accepted in the early Church that we should review sources other than just the scriptures themselves). His answer, is to “judge by the fruits,” which is an evidence based argument. One that Christ makes as well (parable of the vine), as does Moses (calling forth water and mana). Paul is specifically appealing to outside evidence to make his point and to determine what is holy.


    c) When Paul is challenged on his authority to preach, he notes that he has proved his authority and understanding with practical application, not solely by scriptural references. (2 Corinthians 12).


    d) It has been asked why we don’t simply read these at face value. Because we are warned about giving the scriptures short shrift in Joshua. God instructs the Israelites to study the word deeply, to really delve into its meaning so that they can both retain it, and fully explore what it means. “This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.” Joshua 1:8

    Or as the psalmist says, “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.” Psalm 119:18, which is clearly in invocation for deeper understanding than a simple plain text reading would offer.


    e) To understand our obligations to God given to us in scriptures, we must rely on others to check our own understandings. Humans are inherently intellectually dishonest and that is why we are commanded to come together and check each others' understanding. (Hebrews 10). Moses is corrected for attempting to understand the word of God on his own in Exodus 18. King Rehoboam was lauded for seeking out the advice of others to better understand his duty to God in 1 Kings 12.


    f) God even requires us to come and reason with Him (Isaiah 1:18) rather than simply adopting a simplistic understanding of His instructions. On multiple occasions we are told that understanding comes from external evidence as well as scripture. God gives Moses signs so that Moses will understand God’s will (most of God’s information that Moses receives in Egypt is via evidence, not revelation). Jesus uses parables and miracles for exactly that purpose. He commands the crippled to walk so that they would know the Son of Man. He doesn’t invoke scripture alone (though He does invoke it), but augments that scripture with outside interpretation and evidence. Peter does the same, specifically referencing his acts and the evidence people saw around them as warrant for belief, and does them “so that you may know.” That is a very particular phrase calling back to Jesus, Moses in the wilderness, and God to Pharoah. The tradition of augmenting or clarifying the scriptural revelation through external evidence is deep in both the Old and New Testaments. https://winteryknight.com/2009/03/20...-and-evidence/


    g) We are specifically instructed to grow in our level of understanding and depth of exploration of the text. We can't do that, obviously, by just reading the text at a face value level, even children do that, but must engage in the text at more complex understandings like hermeneutics and literary analysis. We must grow in reason and to use logic at more adult levels as we grow. 1 Corinthians 13:11 “When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.”


    h) Paul often points out that fully functional faith is always based on knowledge. Deficient faith is the byproduct of deficient knowledge. He often asks the question, “Don’t you know…?” And asks it in the context often of non-scriptual references. (Rom. 6:3, 16; 11:2; 1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Cor. 5:6; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 1 Cor. 9:13, 27). James does the same in James 4:4. Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch: ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ (Acts 8:30).3


    i) We are commanded to have a reason and an argument for why we believe, not just a list of verses. The context of 1 Peter 3:15 indicates that Peter isn't just preaching verses, but using outside works, including other Jewish works and Greek philosophy.


    j) Romans 1&2 provides an oft quoted defense of using outside evidence to understand scripture. God’s works are manifest in the world so that “none should have an excuse.” We can discover God’s existence and more importantly His will and Law and apply that to our understanding of scripture. From Romans 2: “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” It was literally this argument that started much of the scientific revolution in Europe (Stark, “The Victory of Reason” or Schaeffer “How Should We Then Live?” or Morris, “Men of Science, Men of God”).


    k) Jude’s letter offers an illustration of this when he tells his congregation to use the words he is writing to them to help them better understand scriptures and orthodox theology. Jude 1:3 “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.”


    l) Paul does the same when he says that they can use what he has told them (not just the Gospel) to understand the gospel and explain it to men. 2 Timothy 2:2 “What you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.”


    m) In the Gospels proper, Christ tells us that our understanding explicitly comes from the Holy Spirit (rather than just reading the verses at face value) and better, the Holy Spirit when in a
    group of believers Matthew 18:20) to understand scripture and how we apply it (Luke 12:12).



    2) It would be irresponsible not to. We wouldn’t prohibit the use of a physics text book if we were debating gravity here, so there is little reason to limit the use of Christian and Jewish texts in understanding the Scriptures. Moreover, these texts were available to, and used by, Christians for the last several centuries. The abolitionist tract I posted earlier is a great example of a similar argument, as is Augustine’s Confessions a millennia earlier. The tract references both outside evidence and the Talmud. If those Christians had access too, and referenced outside sources, why wouldn’t we in understanding their position?



    3) It is the natural consequence of our disagreement. You state it “simply says” one thing, I read another interpretation. Because of that disagreement it would be odd to prohibit any sources aside from our two readings. To do so just makes this into a back and forth “nu-uh” argument with some appeal to authority fallacies thrown in. Without those sources, both claims have exactly the same level of support and are unresolvable. It is only when we can reference something a bit deeper that we can resolve the dispute.





    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Lev. 25:45….This doesn't refute the fact that Lev. 25:45 clearly indicates people are property….Lev. 25:45 specifically refers to people being owned.
    I should point out that the first response here is a borderline linkwarz violation. If you are going to cite a reference, you need to include text or summary and an explanation of why that link supports what you are saying. Which leads to the second point. I get that you, future, think it clearly says that, but a lot of people, like myself, authors of commentaries, and the Biblical Rabbis who make up the Talmud, disagree with you. Thus simply asserting that it “clearly says” that is insufficient.

    You need to offer outside support or analysis to show why the mass of biblical scholars is wrong. You haven’t done that here, you’ve committed a bare assertion fallacy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But to the second, is "helping a murderer an immoral act" is vague enough to go either way. Help him murder, immoral, helping him get a meal if he hasn't eaten, probably moral, but plenty of room for immoral depending on the particular circumstances.
    That’s a fair clarification, my typing laziness notwithstanding, what I should have written was perhaps:

    Under a Deontological ethics system there would likely be a rule like "don't lie." Breaking that
    rule would generally be an immoral act.

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

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

    So returning to the point, in that case, the least immoral act would be the moral choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    No worries, I did sound a bit defensive didn't I. The issue with typed conversation, what you mean doesn't always come across the way you would have liked.
    You are absolutely correct, especially in a forum that is, by its very nature, somewhat confrontational.

    To whit, I think I came off a bit incorrectly as well (see below). Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I said "in a strictly moral sense". Since humans are subjective in their perception of morals, you can't decide who gets to live and who dies.
    Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean when you say “in a strictly moral sense” could you elaborate?

    In the meantime, aren’t you deciding who lives and who dies either way? If you decide not to flip the switch one group dies. If you decide to flip the switch another does.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belathazor
    When discussing if the Bible is a good moral guide, seems to me, we would discuss, you know, what's actually in the Bible.
    I don’t disagree, which is why I referenced those courts. They are in the Bible. Why shouldn’t we include this section of the Bible when considering other sections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    How the Bible was subjectively used, really speaks nothing to whether it is an objective, authoritative source though, Right?
    I agree. That argument applies to the OP as well. Future’s interpretation of what it says (even if he is correct) is irrelevant to whether it is an objective, authoritative source, right?

    The only factor that would matter for that specific argument (which is, I think, different than the one the OP is making) is whether or not the Bible’s source is one capable of detailing objective moral values and duties. It would have absolutely nothing to do with what the moral values and duties are claimed to be (that would be an appeal to consequence fallacy). I would argue that it would need to be God given that any moral code devised by humans is, by definition, subjective.

    So far, nothing in the thread has been arguing about the source of the Bible, and thus its claim on objectivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Flame on.....accusing me of arguing something I haven't read is bad form. You could have worded that without the implied ad hom…
    So, I guess, your point is "simple, plain text reading" (like you would do with any other book) doesn't make sense because it was written purposefully cryptic, as to require additional outside sources to fully understand what is written in the Bible?
    First, I should clarify that there wasn’t a flame in that section, though I see that it came across (perhaps not unreasonably) as condescending. My apologies for that inference.

    To rephrase the point, the argument being forwarded in this thread has been that we can and should simply be able to read the verse, absent context and be able to make a pronouncement on what it says.

    My response has been that we don’t do that with Shakespeare, or the Canterbury Tales, or Walden, why would we do it here? Those works aren’t written deliberately obscure at all, but there is a lot of meaning in them that deserves some review. How much more so with a work from an entirely different language family that has been translated into English using words with meanings and contexts we don’t use any more.

    For example, the word “fish” in English. It once meant any creature that lived in the water, not just what we would consider fish. Anglo-Saxons wrote of fish with flat tails that dammed up rivers. The same is true of Deer, which once meant all game species. So simply reading the word “fish” and thinking it means a pike or a salmon doesn’t do the text justice.

    Arguing that it “needs outside sources” also doesn’t quite represent what I’m putting forward. Rather, what I’ve argued is that you and future are interpreting it differently than the vast, vast majority of Biblical scholars. That historically, Jews didn’t read the verse the way you do, nor have Christians (see the abolitionist tracts or the Catholic Church’s edicts). So a set of outside sources would help you see the verse, hopefully, as the bulk Biblical scholars understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    "The Bible can't be read literally, in the most common way we talk today, even though, it was written for people of today, to understand what was happening 2000 years ago, as well as how we should live today"
    No, it would be better worded as “the Bible, like all texts, deserves to be read critically and carefully rather than passively and shallowly.” We spend entire courses and books on each of Shakespeare’s comedies, why wouldn’t we invest more than a 10 second reading in a document meant to be the central document in Christian life.
    "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.


  14. Likes JAGG liked this post
  15. #54
    Administrator

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

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is all irrelevant to the fact that Lev. 25:45 specifically refers to people being owned.
    This response, and the one below it are simply “nu-uh” claims. Simply reasserting a claim and ignoring the rebuttal doesn’t constitute a response. Do you have any relevant data to add?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The prevalence of 'abad used to mean "servant" and only occasionally as "service" only proves my point,
    You don’t seem to offer any evidence or reasoning to support this argument.

    Your statement was:

    This would make sense if you could provide a single reference where 'abad was used in Hebrew to mean "labour" as a noun.

    I offered 15.

    Given that I offered 15 times the required evidence level you requested, we can agree that my initial argument now “makes sense” according to your standard right?

    You asked for the use of the word as a noun, and I offered it. Is that sufficient or are we going to shift the goal posts a bit?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Further, it's interesting to note, from some of the passages you provided, that the noun form of 'abad, 'abodah, is used, which is actually the noun "labour". However, we don't have 'abodah in Lev 25:46, which again ties in with the people being the possession, not the labour.
    I’m assuming you were replying to sections as you read them and wrote this before consulting the end of my response.

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


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

    In the verse under discussion, specific word used was,

    תַּעֲבֹדוּ

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

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


    IE the same noun you point out here is in the verse you reference. It becomes increasingly difficult to hold the distinction point you are offering given your statements that it “would make sense if had been used as a verb” and “that noun is abodeh,” etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I don't recall saying that the most logical translation is that they're owning the verb. Please indicate where I said this.
    I think you might need to reread my response. I didn’t indicate that you claimed the most logical translation was that they owned a verb. Rather, you attempted to dismiss the evidence offered by saying “you can’t possess a verb” in post 31.

    That objection seems to fall by the wayside given both the evidence on Hebrew sentence structure offered and the clarification on the root vs word offered in the last post.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Also, the use of 'achuzzah in Lev 25:45 is specifically for people,
    Again, this is simply rehashing an earlier claim without additional evidence does little to move the debate forward.

    You made this claim in post 31 absent any evidence to support it. (So at the very least please support or retract that claim, Challenge to support a claim.)

    Further, you argument was rebutted in post 32. Specifically, rebutted with evidence.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Second, I don't see a problem with the commentators, since most of them appear to be also reading what the text actually says.
    And you’ll notice that neither of the commentaries you offered says that they owned the slaves as people as you claimed, right? Again, you are reading your additional premise into other people’s statements sans evidence.

    Do you have a commentary where they state that they own the slaves as people? Or, alternatively, that the Bible is describing chattel slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Are you saying that American slave-owners could not manumit their slaves if they wanted to? That was the point: if we're just talking about simple manumission, then the fact that the bible allows slave-owners to manumit their slaves is irrelevant to the fact that the bible does allow for (mandates) permanent ownership.
    I’m not sure how this response makes any sense. You are arguing that the American concept of slavery (chattel slavery) and the Biblical concept were the same thing, at least at their core, but the core of whether a person could be owned differs as highlighted by the differing manumission concepts. While an American slave owner could “release” or “free” his slave, no one else in a slave state was bound to accept that. Slavery was inherent in the identity of the person, in their race. The same is not found in the Bible. In that context, someone release from their status as a bondman could not be compelled by anyone else to work for them.

    That difference highlights a fundamentally different view of what was going on. In the American South, slavery was the natural status of people born to a certain race. It was inherent in their identity and personhood. In Israel it was a work relationship resulting either out of economic situations or loss in warfare. It wasn’t part of the identity of the person nor bound to them by race or genetics.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This just says that the product of the land during the sabbath year is food for the slave-owner and his slaves.
    Not really, again look at the context, as well as the other verses I cited. It is talking about how that land that is given to them is not theirs to own, but the fruits of that land are for them to own. (Sound familiar to the debate more generally?). When you take that verse and its related verse cited by me in the last post discussing the ability of a slave to use the earnings and wealth they have (implicitly arguing for property rights obviously) to be released along with the prohibition from collecting the gleanings of a field (Lev. 23:22 and elsewhere), which are to be collected by the poor and by servants for their additional uses (and this is separate from the requirement to feed them at your own table), this clearly requires that they have a source of income and an ability to own property.

    It would be an odd position for you to hold to both acknowledge that they were allowed the right to collect gleanings for themselves, but somehow didn’t actually own those gleanings.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I was simply pointing out that nothing in the biblical passages you referenced in #5 indicated that the slave's wages could purchase their freedom.
    Which makes it fundamentally different from chattel slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is all irrelevant to the fact that if the slave only dies after a day or two of the beating, the master is not punished. That's what it means to be allowed to beat a slave to death.
    It seems pretty relevant that your claim was incorrect. You claimed before (and here again) that the master wasn’t punished. But that isn’t correct. Lacking a requirement to punish is not the same thing as mandating no punishment. A sentencing guide saying “mitigating circumstances can allow for a less than life sentence in murder cases” doesn’t mean that no one gets a life sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is irrelevant.
    Not at all, remember, I am drawing a distinction between this concept and the concept of chattel slavery you offered. This is a pretty large distinction between the two systems, and thus relevant to the OP’s argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Sirach 33: "(31) If you have but one slave, treat him like yourself ... If you have but one slave, treat him like a brother, for you will need him ... (32) If you ill-treat him ..."
    That is a bit of a stretch of that reading. Especially given the other translations of the text as:

    31 If thou have a servant, entreat him as a brother: for thou hast need of him, as of thine own soul: if thou entreat him evil, and he run from thee, which way wilt thou go to seek him?
    [Septuagint Bible w/Aprocrypha]

    31If you have a servant, treat him as yourself; For as your own soul will you have need of him: If you treat him ill, and he depart and run away, Which way will you go to seek him?
    [World English Bible]

    The more accurate translation, given the Greek and Latin http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/sir033.htm, is that it is saying if you have even a single slave. There is nothing in either the Greek or Latin that limits the principle to a single slave. Rather, it uses the singular version of the noun for servant or slave, which in Greek also meant the indeterminate case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns). IE, if they were to ask how many rats (we use the plural case) are in a closed box, they would literally say, “how many rat are in the box?”

    We can also see this in that none of the commentaries on Sirach reference any kind of limitation in the sense you seem to read it. https://www.studylight.org/commentar...sirach-33.html
    By your reasoning the entire Old Testament is applying to just the case where you have a single slave because the Hebrew is using the singular case of the noun as well.

    Do you have any structural evidence or scholarly commentary that supports your argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So you agree that this passage doesn't mention manumission at all. Thank you.
    No, again, this is a cherry picking fallacy. You ignored most of my response:

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Why is it odd that a slave subject to permanent ownership would seek liberty?
    If they lived in a chattel slavery system? It would seem pretty odd given that chattel slavery doesn’t allow for that option. The fact that a slave could even consider seeking freedom as an option for their life indicates that it is clearly within the range of possibilities in the culture and code being discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And the slave-owner had the right to go and find them.
    No, hence the “where shall you find them” reference. And the “they cannot be returned” commandment. If you want to claim that the Bible gives the owner the right to go and retrieve his slaves, you’ll need to offer support.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, and for the last time hopefully, the OP is about the bible condoning and mandating owning people as property.
    Again, and probably not for the last time, do you know what the definition of chattel slavery is?

    Chattel slavery is the version of slavery where a slave is owned as a human being in perpetuity. https://www.reference.com/history/ch...59d71beba2ca56

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

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

    So..returning to the point, your argument rests on the Bible advocating chattel slavery. Please support or retract that the Hebrew is referring to the person, not the labor in “any way.”

    Simply citing a link to a verse with no explanation and no substantiating evidence or argument is not support, it is in fact, linkwarz. Just saying, “it says that” isn’t support either, you need to actually reference why means what you claim it does or cite a relevant expert that agrees with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This was not the initial claim. As I already explained in post #26:
    There are three relevant points here.
    1) The original claim was made by you in the OP: “To address slavery in the bible from a moral perspective, it is defined here as: "owning a person as property".”
    Thus it was the initial claim, there are literally no other posts before it. So… Please support or retract that the verse actually refers to the person, rather than you read it as referring to the person. Challenge to support a claim.

    2) In post 23 I use the term “rather than labor” as an example of another criteria of something that could be owned, not as a separate claim.

    3) That Hebrews were only allowed to own the fruits of the land and of property was already supported in post 32 (specifically in the discussion in Kiddushin) and post 39 (discussion about non-movables).

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, from Lev 25:45 - "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.”
    I applaud the reference directly to the Hebrew, but you can’t just say “a ha, the verb and a noun are in the same sentence, thus the verb is happening to the noun!” It could be either the subject, the object, or unrelated. You need to consider the word order. Further, you need to consider more than just the root word being used, but rather the modifiers added to the word.

    Here ‘achuzzah is at the end of the sentence. And it isn’t literally ‘achuzzah as you seem to note. Rather, it is: לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה, which is a conjunction word of אֲחֻזָּֽה (‘achuzzah) and לַֽ (to). Used after the word immediately preceding (לָכֶם ) “your” this is “to your possession.” So what is added to their possessions? I think this is where you rush to conclusions.

    If it were the people themselves that were added to the possessions, it would be sufficient to say, “the sojourners can be added to your possessions” or some version of that. We would see towshab by itself, without modifier. But we don’t.

    We see it modified to say “of the sojourners” or “from the sojourners.” That is a very different construct. So we get something that comes from those people rather than the people themselves.

    Your argument is that it is the sons of them that are added. But there is a difficulty here. The word “sons” isn’t there by itself. Rather it is “out of the sons” (https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/.../t_conc_115045) so we again get a parallel construct where it isn’t the noun proper being referenced but something that comes from the noun (notice the same conjunction development as earlier).

    Notice the parallel structures in Lev 25:14 and Neh 10:31 where we are buying something from someone.

    Given the context and structure of the verse, what are they buying “of them?” Their labor. Remember, a free man doesn’t become a chattel slave through purchase. Africans didn’t get “sold into slavery” they were slaves by their very nature, someone just rounded them up and sold them to someone else. Like a wild horse. That is what chattel slavery means, that the person is, by their nature a slave and property. Here, we have someone selling their labor to another in exchange for money. Perhaps it is even a lifetime deal (though there are literally 30 or so ways to escape the deal if you want, including earning enough to repay the contract), but that isn’t being owned as a person, it is being indentured, a very different concept.

    So why do you read it as buying the people? Because you are reading it in a 20th Century American context that has chattel slavery as it’s most recent example. For earlier commentators, especially the English translators of the KJV who didn’t really have chattel slavery, the same inference wasn’t there. Which is why the commentators don’t say this is referencing chattel slavery, they don’t have the same linguistic or cultural baggage that you do.

    As for the commentaries, I applaud the research, but nowhere in them does it say that people are owned as property. Question to opponent. Do you have a commentary that says that people, themselves are owned? That is the definition of slavery you are offering and sticking too after all.


    Or, I could just note that this argument was already relatively settled 150 years ago by the abolitionists:
    3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE for your children after you to inherit them for a possession." This refers to the nations, and not to the individual servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be held as a property-possession, and inheritance; that they became servants of their own accord, and were paid wages; that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly half the days in each year, and thoroughly instructed; that the servants were protected in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters, &c. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable "possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our American slaves were all placed in just such a condition! Alas, for that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together! What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other passages—and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing usages, thus making God pander for lust. The words nahal and nahala, inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify articles of property. "The people answered the king and said, we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of property? "Children are an heritage (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine inheritance." Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children, does he make them articles of property? Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a heritage" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "I am their inheritance." Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance." Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance." Ps. xciv. 14. See also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"possession," has been already discussed—pp. 37—46—we need add in this place but a word, āhuzzā rendered "possession." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the possession of the Israelites? Answer, in the sense of having it to live in. In what sense were the Israelites to possess these nations, and take them as an inheritance for their children? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a perpetualprovision for your children after you, to hold as a constant source of supply. ALWAYS of them shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the class of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the way in which they were to get them.
    Link below.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    In any case, since you'll just come back and say this is my flawed reading, here's the Hebrew analysis:
    "the women ('ishshah) and the little ones (taph), the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder (bazaz)".
    So we have the women and children as subjects to the verb bazaz, which means "to spoil, plunder, prey upon, seize".
    Simply adding the Hebrew roots isn’t conducting analysis, it is simply adding a root, without its additional conjugation, or conjunctions, or sentence structure.

    So, what is your point here? The verse is telling the Israelites to save the women, children, and cattle from the destruction and to take them with them (that is what bazaz literally means). IE “Don’t kill them, remove them from the destruction and take them with you.”

    God commands the Israelites not to murder the women and children, nor to leave them to starve, but to bring them into their own households (along with the associated requirement to feed them from your own table) and that is the great moral tragedy here?

    Of course, the argument you are implying here is a bit off topic. Nothing, even in the transliteration you offer says that “people as owned as property.”

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So, you haven't actually determined that owning people as property is immoral, you're just agreeing with others' interpretations of the bible. Further, on what basis do you accept the super-ultra-moral and lengthy anti-slavery interpretations over what the text says?
    Begging the question fallacy, you assume they are different. I offered them as support of the relatively consistent Christian interpretation that the Bible does not allow for chattel slavery. They are specifically arguing to the slave owning farmers of the American South, who are making the same argument you have, that they are incorrect both in their reading and their understanding of Christian teaching. Even the Southern Baptist convention agreed on this statement, it seems odd (or does it given the incentive they had to believe and want to read it that way, just as you have an incentive to want to read it that way too) that only the uneducated farmers held that position and those with familiarity with the text and education held the opposite opinion.
    I find the same source for that conclusion that both the English and American Abolitionist movements did. Remember them? The movements that actually ended the slave trade and slavery in the West (and in most places outside of parts of the Arab world)?

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, you can post your own support like everyone else.
    I did, you’ll notice it was a lengthy passage. Additionally, I also meant it as “feel free to see additional information” not direct support, since it was tangential to the claim I made. It serves more to highlight how woefully antiquated the argument you are making is and how often it has been refuted.
    OBJECTION III. "Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever." Lev. xxv. 44—46.

    The points in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." 4. "FOREVER."
    The buying of servants was discussed, pp. 17—22, and holding them as a "possession." pp. 37—46. We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever."

    1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called "bondmen" while others are called "servants," is quoted as proof that the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' translators were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The word here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere. The Hebrew word "ēbēdh," the plural of which is here translated "bondmen," is in Isa. xlii. 1, applied to Christ. "Behold my servant (bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen." So Isa. lii. 13. "Behold my servant(Christ) shall deal prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, to King Rehoboam. "And they spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a servant unto this people, then they will be thy servants forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation. In fine, the word is applied to all persons doing service for others—to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to tributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to younger sons—defining their relation to the first born, who is called Lord and ruler—to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful addresses not less than fiftytimes in the Old Testament.

    If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if Abraham had thousands and if they abounded under the Mosaic system, why had their language no word that meant slave? That language must be wofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the most common and familiar objects and conditions. To represent by the same word, and without figure, property, and the owner of that property, is a solecism. Ziba was an "ēbēdh," yet he "owned" (!) twenty ēbēdhs! In our language, we have both servant and slave. Why? Because we have both the things and need signs for them. If the tongue had a sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some name for it: but our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such thing. But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word ēbēdh if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their national servants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently, but domestic servants so rarely that no necessity existed, even if they were slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics, under heathen laws and usages, proclaimed their liabilities; their locality made a specific term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had not only servants, but a multitude of slaves, a word meaning slave, would have been indispensable for every day convenience. Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on the outposts to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in usages between the without and the within.

    2."FOREVER." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during their life time, and their posterity from generation to generation. No such idea is contained in the passage. The word "forever," instead of defining the length of individual service, proclaims the permanence of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their permanent domestics should be of the Strangers, and not of the Israelites; it declares the duration of that general provision. As if God had said, "You shall always get your permanent laborers from the nations round about you—your servants shall always be of that class of persons." As it stands in the original, it is plain—"Forever of them shall ye serve yourselves." This is the literal rendering.

    That "forever" refers to the permanent relations of a community, rather than to the services of individuals, is a fair inference from the form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the heathen. Of THEM shall ye buy," &c. "THEY shall be your possession." To say nothing of the uncertainty of these individuals surviving those after whom they are to live, the language used, applies more naturally to a body of people, than to individual servants. Besides perpetual service cannot be argued from the term forever. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter, limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "Then thou shalt cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound * * throughout ALL your land." "And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof." It may be objected that "inhabitants" here means Israelitish inhabitants alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof." Besides, in the sixth verse, there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in which servants and Strangers are included; and in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promises. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in, by the day of atonement. What did these institutions show forth? The day of atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of jubilee, the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a jubilee to Jews only? Were they types of sins remitted, and of salvation proclaimed to the nation of Israel alone? Is there no redemption for us Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and impiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock, that made earth quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple veil? and did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition from its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of OUR salvation lives. "Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people." One shout shall swell from all the ransomed, "Thou hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood out of EVERY kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants from the Gentiles, makes Christianity Judaism. It not only eclipses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusal to release servants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a grand leading type of the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of Christ's redemption. Finally, even if forever did refer to individual service, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same word defines the length of time which Jewish servants served who did not go out in the seventh year. And all admit that they went out at the jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2—6; Deut. xv. 12—17. The 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to prove that "forever" in the 46th verse, extends beyond the jubilee. "The land shall not be sold FOREVER, for the land is mine"—since it would hardly be used in different senses in the same general connection. As forever, in the 46th verse, respects the general arrangement, and not individual service the objection does not touch the argument. Besides in the 46th verse, the word used, is Olām, meaning throughout the period, whatever that may be. Whereas in the 23d verse, it is Tsēmithuth, meaning, a cutting off.

    3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE for your children after you to inherit them for a possession." This refers to the nations, and not to the individual servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be held as a property-possession, and inheritance; that they became servants of their own accord, and were paid wages; that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly half the days in each year, and thoroughly instructed; that the servants were protected in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters, &c. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable "possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our American slaves were all placed in just such a condition! Alas, for that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together! What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other passages—and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing usages, thus making God pander for lust. The words nahal and nahala, inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify articles of property. "The people answered the king and said, we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of property? "Children are an heritage (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine inheritance." Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children, does he make them articles of property? Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a heritage" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "I am their inheritance." Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance." Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance." Ps. xciv. 14. See also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"possession," has been already discussed—pp. 37—46—we need add in this place but a word, āhuzzā rendered "possession." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the possession of the Israelites? Answer, in the sense of having it to live in. In what sense were the Israelites to possess these nations, and take them as an inheritance for their children? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a perpetualprovision for your children after you, to hold as a constant source of supply. ALWAYS of them shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the class of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the way in which they were to get them.
    Ibid link

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Hold on, you said that those questions are shifting the burden. And when asked how they are burden-shifting, now you're saying they're irrelevant? Please explain how asking an irrelevant question could ever be considered burden-shifting?
    They are irrelevant because they are burden shifting. The questions do nothing to support the warrant for the argument of your OP because they serve to try to support a different argument (my position). That makes them both burden shifting (they are about my position, not yours) and irrelevant (because they don’t concern the OP).

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, "we" didn't move past it, you simply ignored the definition provided in post #26.

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

    The verb allow: "give (someone) permission to do something"
    Some useful synonyms: approve, authorize, empower, endorse, sanction
    Therefore, to “allow” or give authority to do something is literally the definition of “mandate”.
    No, I asked you where it says what you said it did.

    Your definition here doesn’t support that claim either. It is interesting that you don’t quote the synonyms for mandate. If these terms are synonymous, as you claim, why is neither term listed in the synonyms?
    Because you are missing the critical context. Mandate requires action, allow does not. Permission means you can take the action or not, it is permissive. Mandate is authority to act in a certain way, at the exclusion of all other ways.

    That is why it’s synonyms are: instruct • order • direct • command • tell • require • charge • call on
    While allows are: permit • let • authorize • give permission for • give authorization for

    You’ll notice they share none of the same synonyms because they are two vastly different words.

    And I think you know this. What would happen to you didn’t show up after a judge told you “I mandate that you show up to court?”
    Is it the same threat as not showing up after he says “I’ll allow you to come to court?”

    Or take a political example. The Contraception Mandate in the ACA. Does it give employers the option to cover contraception, or does it require it?

    Oxford dictionaries confirm this distinction:

    Allow: Let (someone) have or do something. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/allow
    permit, let, authorize, give someone permission to, give authorization to, give leave to, sanction, grant, grant someone the right, license, empower, enable, entitle, qualify

    Mandate: An official order or commission to do something. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mandate
    instruction, directive, direction, decree, command, order, injunction, edict, charge, commission, bidding, warrant, ruling, ordinance, law, statute, fiat

    Again notice the distinction in permissiveness. And, notice that none of the synonyms match.

    To maintain this point, you need to support or retract (Challenge to support a claim.) your original claim: “allow is literally in the definition of mandate.”

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So for the record no, the bible doesn't state that a court was obligated to review cases where slaves were beaten to death. Thanks for confirming!
    That is an interesting reading of what I wrote. The Talmud is a discussion on the Torah. The Talmud is literally telling you what experts in the Torah say is in the Torah.
    "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. Likes JAGG liked this post
  17. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Squatch, you hairy little guy you

    My goodness!

    (I thought you had left the premises though happy you are still here

    You don't like to lose do you

    I can't respond to all of that but, I will hit some of the pertinent points, if I may.

    You do make some very good points. Some I hadn't considered

    I will get back to you shortly, I just had to respond to your "book" before I had to go tonight

  18. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  19. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    ​"My goodness", indeed, Squatch. That definitely is quite a lot to respond to, and I do intend to get to it.

    However, in the meantime, I really must correct you on this "mandate" nonsense, which has simply got to stop. Hopefully we can get past this and move on to the rest of the discussion.

    For the last time now, the OP uses the verb form of mandate!

    When attempting to refute the OP's use of that verb, you have repeatedly - and incorrectly - drawn on the noun form, as well as synonyms of the noun. This is getting quite frustrating indeed, especially since I have already corrected you on this at least twice.

    Case in point, from your last post:
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Mandate: An official order or commission to do something. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mandate
    Right here you are referring to the noun, which has nothing to do with the OP.
    If we scroll down just a little in your very own source, we see the verb's definition, which is what the OP is working with:
    Give (someone) authority to act in a certain way.

    To repeat: This is the definition which is in play when the OP uses the verb. The noun is not used in any way.

    Now, regarding the question of comparison with the verb "allow", let's look, again, at your own source.
    The definition of the verb "allow" is: Let (someone) have or do something.
    Now, again from your own source, switching to thesaurus mode for "allow", we get:
    permit, let, authorize, give someone permission to, give authorization

    As you can clearly see, the synonyms in bold draw direct parallels back to the definition of the verb "mandate":
    - authorize (defined by your source as: Give official permission for or approval)
    - give authorization (first 2 words of the definition of the verb mandate: “give authority”)

    Further, again from your own source, by clicking on the "+Synonyms" to expand the list of synonyms for the verb "mandate", the very 1st synonym is "authorize".
    "Authorize", lo and behold, is also a synonym of "allow", again, from your very own source.

    So to re-cap, again using only your source (other sources also support this):
    - the OP uses the verb form of "mandate", not the noun
    - the verb "mandate" is defined by your source as "Give (someone) authority to act in a certain way"
    - the verb "allow" is defined by your source as "Let (someone) have or do something"
    - the synonyms of the verb "allow", from your source, include "authorize", and "give authorization", which directly match the definition of the verb "mandate" (give authority), both from your source
    - the 1st synonym of the verb "mandate", the verb "authorize", also happens to be a synonym of the verb "allow", both from your source

  20. #57
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Squatch, after further study, the current "translation" for the various bibles, was much, much longer ago than I thought. As such, I concede the "owned as property" as opposed to "labor" angle on this conversation.
    The intricacies of the English language are hard enough, I am not interested in learning this long ago language well enough to be able to argue about it intelligently. Further, you and Future seem to be quite formidable in this area.

    Having said that:
    I honestly don't see a discernable difference between the persons "labor" being owned as opposed to the "person" being owned though in this situation (please remember I am discussing only the slave that had their village destroyed. All the men killed. The slave is taken to another village to serve an owner - specifically not the other various kinds of slavery you keep referencing). Could you elaborate on just this point?

    I really can't respond adequately to your lengthy posts other that a bit a t a time.

  21. #58
    Administrator

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

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Squatch, after further study, the current "translation" for the various bibles, was much, much longer ago than I thought. As such, I concede the "owned as property" as opposed to "labor" angle on this conversation.
    The intricacies of the English language are hard enough, I am not interested in learning this long ago language well enough to be able to argue about it intelligently. Further, you and Future seem to be quite formidable in this area.
    I understand, thank you for letting me know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Having said that:
    I honestly don't see a discernable difference between the persons "labor" being owned as opposed to the "person" being owned though in this situation (please remember I am discussing only the slave that had their village destroyed. All the men killed. The slave is taken to another village to serve an owner - specifically not the other various kinds of slavery you keep referencing). Could you elaborate on just this point?
    Sure. 2 is the better explanation I think to what you are asking.

    1) The simplist explanation is that it is claim the OP added without requisite support. The lengthy discussion is to show future that he doesn't have support for this claim.

    Now, future could in theory concede that point and return to the premises in the OP. But here he has a bit of difficulty. He is arguing that we know the Bible is a bad moral code because we have access to a better one (our "secular moral code").

    The problem is that that term is a meaningless one and so far future hasn't been able to define it in a manner that allows for anything like the comparison his OP claims as valid. And if he is basing it off the American system, we need to really evaluate if the Hebrew concept is at all similar to what we mean when we say "slavery." I don't think it is, it is far closer to indentured servitude, something we don't have as much of a problem with. But again, that is his claim to define and support.


    2) That is where the debate started from, but I actually think this is an important point in Judeo-Christian theology and that might be more what you are asking about.

    Human beings are soveriegn and sacred. Thus, while I can have a claim on your labor (the army has one on mine for example), I can't own you as a person. The Talmud does an excellent job of explaining why this matters. It means your life isn't mine to control. And it means that a master must treat a servant (or slave, the word is the same in Hebrew) with dignity and respect. That is why they must be fed the same food the master eats and have housing comprable to the the masters.

    It is also why there are so many provisions allowing freedom. If it just the claim on labor that you have, anythign that mitigates that claim ends the relationship. If you own the person, there is nothing that would really remedy that.

    That is why chattel slavery systems (the American South, Arab world, etc) have been notoriously worse than systems that didn't include that ownership idea. It is why we saw some really dark excesses in Mississippi. There is a moral gulf between chattel slavery and the system practiced in Ancient Israel. It would be like comparing the British colonial administration of the 13 colonies with the Belgian Congo just because they both are "colonies."

    If we are really going to make an argument about the morality of the commandment here we need to, at least, be clear in what is actually being allowed in my opinion.

    Does that clarify it a bit for you?






    Quote Originally Posted by future
    ​"My goodness", indeed, Squatch. That definitely is quite a lot to respond to, and I do intend to get to it.
    Is that why you picked the least relevant part to respond to rather than the section of my response showing your premise structure to be invalid?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Give (someone) authority to act in a certain way.
    So your argument is that the synonym of a synonym means the words are identical? That is literally the argument you are putting forward here?

    Let's see where that reasoning takes us.

    Vassal is a synonym with slave. And "man" is a synonym with vassal.

    So applying your exact same argument, man and slave are synonyms? If I was to say "Mike is a man" i'm saying that he is a slave as well right? That is how you are applying that reasoning here.

    Clearly that is a ridiculous interpretation.

    Regardless, this justification does not support your claim. Either support or retract that: "allow is literally in the definition of mandate.” Challenge to support a claim.
    "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.


  22. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sure. 2 is the better explanation I think to what you are asking.
    2) That is where the debate started from, but I actually think this is an important point in Judeo-Christian theology and that might be more what you are asking about.

    Human beings are soveriegn and sacred. Thus, while I can have a claim on your labor (the army has one on mine for example), I can't own you as a person. The Talmud does an excellent job of explaining why this matters. It means your life isn't mine to control. And it means that a master must treat a servant (or slave, the word is the same in Hebrew) with dignity and respect. That is why they must be fed the same food the master eats and have housing comprable to the the masters.

    It is also why there are so many provisions allowing freedom. If it just the claim on labor that you have, anythign that mitigates that claim ends the relationship. If you own the person, there is nothing that would really remedy that.
    Yes, the army can claim your labor (because you volunteered, yes?) but this is still a far cry from every male you knew dead and you must now serve their killers wishes. So you can't control someone's "life", just their "labor"? Again, "labor" is kinda any action you may perform....Why do I need to own "you" if I can "own " what "you" can do (if I wanted a slave)?

    While it's I suppose that this kind of slavery is "nicer" than "the old south in America, I just have a real problem how these slaves can live a happy life??

    Your a young girl, your dad was just murdered and you are taken away to another village. You have all kinds of rights (that I am sure are explained to you in great detail, how you can avail yourself of these rights), but your "labor" is now used to serve your fathers murderers wishes. Perhaps someday you can go free.?.?. "Your" world died, how would you dare appose any treatment, even if allowed? Young girls are abused everyday now, and they can call 911 for instant relief of abuse but don't....

    But how does this uneducated "slave" learn all these things? You make it sound like if they were treated bad they could call 911 or go to the library and study up on what to do "legally"..

    And this young girl apparently can be beaten with a "rod" for punishment as long as no permanent injuries result. We have discussed this (as well as Rabi Dak...where did he go anyway, he brought this up?) , but the rebuttals just didn't quite hit the mark yet.

    Even if I just grant major better rights and living conditions, this is slavery, not like the "south" perhaps, but it is still slavery.

  23. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Is that why you picked the least relevant part to respond to rather than the section of my response showing your premise structure to be invalid?
    Yes. As I stated: I do intend to get to it, but it is quite a lot to respond to.

    Is that going to be a problem for you? Are you not willing/able to address your issues with the use of the verb "mandate" in the meantime? If so, please do let me know, and we'll try to figure out some solution that best fits your needs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So your argument is that the synonym of a synonym means the words are identical? That is literally the argument you are putting forward here?
    Since you are asking and are obviously confused about the argument, I'll repeat the logic:
    1. The OP uses the verb form of "mandate", not the noun
    2. The verb "mandate" is defined by your source as "Give (someone) authority to act in a certain way"
    3. The verb "allow" is defined by your source as "Let (someone) have or do something"
    4. The synonyms of the verb "allow", from your source, include "authorize", and "give authorization", which directly match the definition of the verb "mandate" (give authority), both from your source
    5. The 1st synonym of the verb "mandate", the verb "authorize", also happens to be a synonym of the verb "allow", both from your source

    Please note that only #1 & #2 are pertinent to the use of the verb "mandate" in the OP - the rest of it is regarding the comparison between "allow" and "mandate".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Vassal is a synonym with slave. And "man" is a synonym with vassal. So applying your exact same argument, man and slave are synonyms? If I was to say "Mike is a man" i'm saying that he is a slave as well right? That is how you are applying that reasoning here.
    I don't know if you're deliberately misinterpreting words or simply grasping at straws at this point, but unfortunately, you are completely misunderstanding the logic behind how the words are compared when using their synonyms.

    The issue is that you are using "man" quite ambiguously, without clarifying the meaning of "man", when used as a synonym of "vassal".
    Looking closely - again at your source - we see a couple definitions of "man" which help shed some light on your problem:

    1.7 (dated) A manservant or valet.
    Example: Get me a cocktail, my man.

    1.8 (historical) A vassal.
    Example: By taking service in William's army he had become the man of the Duke of the Normans.

    Therefore, your example sentence of "Mike is a man", is completely incorrect for the comparison you are making.
    It should be something like: "His man, Mike, brought him a cocktail".
    Or, historically: "Mike, by taking service in William's army, you've become the man of the Duke of the Normans".

    Now the reasoning behind saying Mike is a slave is a lot clearer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Clearly that is a ridiculous interpretation.
    Clearly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Regardless, this justification does not support your claim. Either support or retract that: "allow is literally in the definition of mandate.”
    Literal (from your source): "Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration ... Free from exaggeration or distortion."
    It is not exaggeration or distortion to say that "allow" means to "give authority", and since the definition of the verb "mandate" is "Give (someone) authority to act in a certain way", we have a solid comparison.

    Even just looking at the definitions of "allow" and "mandate", we can again see the valid, literal, comparison:
    Mandate: "Give (someone) authority to act in a certain way."
    Allow: "Let (someone) do something."

    So, when the bible provides clear instructions for how slaves are to be obtained and treated, this is, quite literally, mandating slavery.

    I hope that clears it up for you. Please let me know if you have any further issues with this.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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