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 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 138
  1. #61
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Your a young girl, your dad was just murdered...
    Let's start here because this is where the moral question lies. You are a soldier, you've just defeated an enemy army and come upon a village with a young girl whose father and brothers are now dead.

    What you proposing that they do?

    Remember, there are no males left necessary for the kind of food production and storage that would let her survive the winter. Her family isn't there to raise her anymore. And, with the village's male population gone, you can imagine what would happen to a village full of women surrounded by the kind of lawless pillaging that happens in ancient warfare, especially from the defeated army.

    So there you are, in the village, do you take this girl back to a safe place where she is guaranteed food and shelter, though admittidely must do the labor you demand of her? Or let her starve (or worse) here in the wasteland?

    This isn't a false dichotomy, this is the real choice in ancient warfare.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    But how does this uneducated "slave" learn all these things?
    As I noted in one of my, admitedly long, responses to future. She is required to be taught these concepts in the synagogue. She also has a right to attend synagogue to learn them and to ask, a right enforced by Judges (travelling legal authorities who acted somewhat like sherrifs).

    It is possible that someone would have broken these laws and hidden that truth from her, sure. But that is an indictment of them, not of the laws.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    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
    Ok...and?

    Because a definition uses a synomym for another word in it does not mean that the word is in the definition.

    For example:

    Law: The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

    Member is a synonym with subscriber who is defined as someone who has signed the document.

    So by your reasoning, laws only apply to those people who signed the laws right? After all, the person who signed it is "literally" within the definition of "law."


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    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
    So..you are saying that if two words share a synonym they are synonmous? There is very little other way to read this premise. If you are arguing something else, I'm open to a clarification, but it does appear you are arguing that because "allow" and "mandate" share a synonym "authorize" that they are synomous.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The issue is that you are using "man" quite ambiguously, without clarifying the meaning of "man", when used as a synonym of "vassal".
    Am I? Or am I using it in exactly the same manner you've done above? You haven't clarified what are the scenarios you would use "allow" to mean "authorize," nor have you made any of the nice explanation from below in your original argument. If you had, you would have undermined your own premise. You would have had to note that "allow" and "authorize" are only synonyms when we are talking about legal permission in contrary to a bar to an action.

    The police allowed him to go home. He wasn't forced to go home, but could as opposed to being detained.

    Compare that to the mandate defintion you use, which does not mean a prohibition of action, but a prohibition against inaction.

    ‘the rightful king was mandated and sanctioned by God’

    ‘Well, the problem here is, the ballot initiatives mandate something like 70 percent of the spending in the budget.’

    ‘The program was mandated to render assistance to forest occupants in developing and improving the ecological health of open and denuded forestlands by planting a combination of agricultural crops and tree species.’

    None of these are using the word authorize in the sense you rely on for your synonym. They man isn't "allowed" to become king, he must become king.

    The ballot initiatives don't allow spending 70% on certain items, they require them to be spent on those items.


    All of this was detailed quite early in thread.

    And all of it can be simply clarified by asking a single question about the OP.

    Is a Hebrew, when he comes across a foreign person in war required to take him as a slave? IE would he sin if he doesn't take him a slave?



    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Literal (from your source): "Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration ... Free from exaggeration or distortion."
    I don't recall giving a source for literal, I assume you mean the Oxford dictionary? If so, please cite your source.


    Your statement was "allow is literally in..." The modifier "literally" applies here to "in" not "allow"

    If I were to say "Mike is literally in his house" I'm not using some "literal definition of Mike" I'm saying that we are using the word "in" in a literal sense, "within the confines of."

    Perhaps you misplaced the modifier and meant to say, "the literal definition of allow is within the definition of mandate?" (which is an unsupported claim because you haven't shown the definition for allow is within the definition for mandate, only that they share a synonym).

    So we are back to where we were. Did you mean that the word "allow" was within the definition of mandate (the statement you made) or that the definition of allow was within the definition of mandate (perhaps what you meant)?

    Which unsupported statement is your 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.


  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sigh ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So by your reasoning, laws only apply to those people who signed the laws right? After all, the person who signed it is "literally" within the definition of "law."
    Again, you seem to be confused about the logic of the comparisons you are making when attempting to refute the comparison I made. The "members" in you offered definition of "law" aren't members of the law, but members of the community. Looking at the definition of "member", again, from your source, we get "a person belonging to a particular group", which fits quite well with the usage of "members" in the definition of "law", and not the "subscribers" synonym you erroneously brought in.

    Addressing these language errors of yours is becoming quite tedious, especially when I've already explained and supported the very simple comparison between "allow" and the verb "mandate".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    "allow" and "authorize" are only synonyms when we are talking about legal permission in contrary to a bar to an action.
    Your source shows "authorize" as a synonym of "allow" for the 1st definition "Let someone do something", and makes no mention of what you're claiming here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The police allowed him to go home. He wasn't forced to go home, but could as opposed to being detained. Compare that to the mandate defintion you use, which does not mean a prohibition of action, but a prohibition against inaction.
    The definition of mandate in use is "give someone authority to act in a certain way", and makes no mention of what you're claiming here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    'the rightful king was mandated and sanctioned by God'
    'Well, the problem here is, the ballot initiatives mandate something like 70 percent of the spending in the budget.'
    'The program was mandated to render assistance to forest occupants in developing and improving the ecological health of open and denuded forestlands by planting a combination of agricultural crops and tree species.'

    None of these are using the word authorize in the sense you rely on for your synonym.
    They man isn't "allowed" to become king, he must become king.
    The ballot initiatives don't allow spending 70% on certain items, they require them to be spent on those items.
    I'm sorry, Squatch, but I really don't get why this is so difficult for you. When you get a very clear definition like "give someone authority to act in a certain way", and then you get a list of example sentences using that word as defined in that way, then those example sentences are using the word as defined in that way. What this means is that you can take each instance of "mandate" in all those example sentences, and relatively easily work in the definition to replace "mandate", and the sentence would have the same meaning:

    'the rightful king was given authority by God'
    'the ballot initiatives give them authority to allocate something like 70 percent of the spending in the budget'
    'the program was given authority to render assistance'

    You have repeatedly misinterpreted the word and the example sentences to mean some action is required, when by definition, it's simply that authority is given to perform some action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Is a Hebrew, when he comes across a foreign person in war required to take him as a slave? IE would he sin if he doesn't take him a slave?
    No, based on the definition of "mandate" - for the last time now, hopefully: "give someone authority to act in a certain way" - when the bible provides rules for how slaves are to be obtained and treated, the bible is giving authority to obtain and treat slaves a certain way - the bible is mandating slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your statement was "allow is literally in..." The modifier "literally" applies here to "in" not "allow"
    And I guess this is one of the sources of your difficulty with the use of "mandate", "allow", "authorize", etc. I never said that "allow is literally in the definition", but that "allow is literally the definition" - without "in".

    So again, and really, crossing-my-fingers-hopefully, for the last time now:
    Literal: "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". Since the definition of the verb "mandate" is "give someone authority to act in a certain way", we have a solid literal equivalent between "give someone authority to ..." and "allow someone to ..."

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

    I truly hope you now understand what the word means and how it's being used in the OP.

  3. #63
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigh ...

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, based on the definition of "mandate" - for the last time now, hopefully: "give someone authority to act in a certain way" - when the bible provides rules for how slaves are to be obtained and treated, the bible is giving authority to obtain and treat slaves a certain way - the bible is mandating slavery.
    This really does clarify what you are attempting to get across. I believe you are using the word "mandate" in a non-standard way (more on that in a second), which also explains why you have conflated the permissive concept of allow with the more restrictive concept of mandate imo.

    Just to clarify (since clarity is more imporant than agreement here) the difference, if someone where to tell both of us: "the IRS mandates that you complete a 1040" you would interpret that as "I may or may not fill out the 1040, its up to me" where I would interpet it as "I have no choice, the IRS has said I must do the 1040."

    Is that a fair assessment of our relative understandings of this word?


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    'the ballot initiatives give them authority to allocate something like 70 percent of the spending in the budget'
    This is why I think you are using the word in a non-standard way.

    ‘Well, the problem here is, the ballot initiatives mandate something like 70 percent of the spending in the budget.’

    What would happen if they spent 40% of the budget on something not part of the ballot initiatives?

    Clearly the first half of that sentence indicates that the problem is the lack of flexibility in budgeting because 70% of the spending has been locked in by voters.

    Your answer to that question is "nothing" because the voters just allowed, not required them to act in a certain way. That isn't, however how the word is used in that defintion in any single sentance.

    For example:

    'The program was mandated to render assistance to forest occupants in developing and improving the ecological health of open and denuded forestlands by planting a combination of agricultural crops and tree species.'

    What, in your view would happen if the program did nothing? Would it have violated its mandate? Hint: this word is used quite often in this context and it doesn't imply permissiveness (https://www.cbo.gov/topics/mandates).
    "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. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's start here because this is where the moral question lies.

    I made a number of points in a short post. You only responded to two?

    ---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's start here because this is where the moral question lies. You are a soldier, you've just defeated an enemy army and come upon a village with a young girl whose father and brothers are now dead.

    What you proposing that they do?

    Well, I guess when you put it "that way", they don't have much of a choice.......

    The ONLY possible choices are to kill this poor young girl, "let her starve", or make her a slave!!!
    This appears to be what you are forwarding.

    Am I correct?

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As I noted in one of my, admitedly long, responses to future. She is required to be taught these concepts in the synagogue. She also has a right to attend synagogue to learn them and to ask, a right enforced by Judges (travelling legal authorities who acted somewhat like sherrifs).
    And I forwarded that any young girl is unlikely to attempt to assert her rights to the same people that just slaughtered her family!! Especially since she can be "beaten with a rod"!

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's start here because this is where the moral question lies. You are a soldier, you've just defeated an enemy army and come upon a village with a young girl whose father and brothers are now dead.

    What you proposing that they do?

    Remember, there are no males left necessary for the kind of food production and storage that would let her survive the winter. Her family isn't there to raise her anymore. And, with the village's male population gone, you can imagine what would happen to a village full of women surrounded by the kind of lawless pillaging that happens in ancient warfare, especially from the defeated army.

    So there you are, in the village, do you take this girl back to a safe place where she is guaranteed food and shelter, though admittidely must do the labor you demand of her? Or let her starve (or worse) here in the wasteland?

    This isn't a false dichotomy, this is the real choice in ancient warfare.
    So does the moral guidance of the Bible relate to "back then", or then and now?

  5. #65
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sigh ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This really does clarify what you are attempting to get across. I believe you are using the word "mandate" in a non-standard way (more on that in a second), which also explains why you have conflated the permissive concept of allow with the more restrictive concept of mandate imo.
    Squatch, for the last time, there is no conflation other than your own errors. I have been using the verb "mandate" with the same meaning since the very beginning, and incidentally, with the very same meaning as provided in the very 1st definition in virtually every single major source. That you still cannot bring yourself to concede such a simple misunderstanding and misuse of the word on your part (your repeated errors of referring to the noun's definition when I have only ever used the verb, and your repeated insistence that it's something required vs. allowed/authorized) is simply ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Is that a fair assessment of our relative understandings of this word?
    I don't know why any clarification is still required for you - I have, again repeatedly, referred you to the meaning of the verb "mandate" in use. I understand that you still want to try to make up strange situations and examples where it would be clear that the verb is being used as you have mistakenly thought this whole time even though I've corrected you repeatedly, but it's all irrelevant to the fact that the verb is and has been defined quite clearly, and that definition is in use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is why I think you are using the word in a non-standard way.
    Again, because I have repeatedly explained for you how the verb is defined, you have no rational justification for this save your own misunderstanding or stubbornness. And it's not that I'm using the word in a non-standard way. As I clearly explained in my last post, the definition is provided as "give someone authority to do something", and the example sentences provided use that definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    ‘Well, the problem here is, the ballot initiatives mandate something like 70 percent of the spending in the budget.’
    What would happen if they spent 40% of the budget on something not part of the ballot initiatives?
    Again, based on the fact that the definition is "give someone authority to do something", and the example sentences use that definition, spending on something which is not part of the ballot initiatives is not relevant to that statement, which indicates that spending 70% is authorized by the ballot initiatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Clearly the first half of that sentence indicates that the problem is the lack of flexibility in budgeting because 70% of the spending has been locked in by voters.
    Again, Squatch, the definition is "give someone authority to do something", and the example sentences use that definition, so 70% hasn't been locked in - you're doing your "mandate means it's required" nonsense again. You really need to stop that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    'The program was mandated to render assistance to forest occupants in developing and improving the ecological health of open and denuded forestlands by planting a combination of agricultural crops and tree species.'
    What, in your view would happen if the program did nothing? Would it have violated its mandate? Hint: this word is used quite often in this context and it doesn't imply permissiveness (https://www.cbo.gov/topics/mandates).
    This is just amazing. You did it again! In an example sentence which uses the verb "mandate", with the definition "give someone authority to do something", and the example sentence using that definition, you yet again go back to the noun!

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Would it have violated its mandate?
    Where in the sentence does it state that the program has a mandate (noun)? All the sentence means yet again, based on the definition "give someone authority to do something", and the example sentence using that definition, is that the program is given authority to do something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Hint: this word is used quite often in this context and it doesn't imply permissiveness (https://www.cbo.gov/topics/mandates)
    This is irrelevant since the example sentence in question has nothing to do with such mandates. Did you actually read your source to see if it refers to or uses in any way the verb "mandate"? Hint: when reading, check to see if the word in question is somewhere between a subject and object - that means it's a verb (yay!), but if it's before or after another verb - that means it's a noun (oh no!).

    Bottom line, Squatch: You seem to be wholly incapable of wrapping your head around (not sure if it's a comprehension issue or just plain stubbornness) the simple fact that "to mandate something" simply means "to give someone authority to do something" as defined simply. Whether the action is required, or there's an actual mandate is not mentioned nor relevant. What's being communicated by the sentences using this verb defined in this way is simply that someone is given authority to do something. So when the bible provides clear instructions for how slaves are to be obtained and treated, the bible is giving authority to do something (in this case slavery), hence the statement that the bible mandates slavery. The bible mandates slavery.

  6. #66
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Just a suggestion. If things are getting bogged down over a semantic argument over a word, perhaps the concept should be relayed using different words. If you mean "give someone the authority to do X", then just say those words.

    I've always considered the most common usage of "mandate" to mean "require" and therefore a different definition would likely cause me some confusion as well. I'm not at all saying that your usage is incorrect but that it seems to cause a problem with communication. Not assigning any blame - just observing a problem that is hampering debate and suggesting a solution to help move it along.

  7. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  8. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Just a suggestion. If things are getting bogged down over a semantic argument over a word, perhaps the concept should be relayed using different words. If you mean "give someone the authority to do X", then just say those words.

    I've always considered the most common usage of "mandate" to mean "require" and therefore a different definition would likely cause me some confusion as well. I'm not at all saying that your usage is incorrect but that it seems to cause a problem with communication. Not assigning any blame - just observing a problem that is hampering debate and suggesting a solution to help move it along.
    I appreciate your suggestion, but there's really no reason for any confusion at this point.

  9. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's start here because this is where the moral question lies. You are a soldier, you've just defeated an enemy army and come upon a village with a young girl whose father and brothers are now dead.

    Let's start here:

    You are attacking a village and you just defeated it and are looking for "plunder". Slaves to use or sell.

    This is a moral guide for the ages?

    Surely if you have a daughter you hope for better possibilities???? Yes?

    North Korea currently has a "satellite" orbiting over the US every day. If it turned out to be an EMP we (the US) could be living in the dark ages in seconds. Would it be ok to return to these passages in the Bible for moral guidance regarding slaves? Would it be ok to take whatever remained of the US population and make them slaves, as long as they had the same rights given to slaves in the Bible?????
    Because they might die of starvation or disease if they weren't slaves?

    REALLY!!


    Given such a situation, your ability to even ask this question (out loud) would be severely limited, would it not??


    AND

    this is your idea of an "objective moral " position????
    Last edited by Belthazor; September 6th, 2017 at 08:25 PM.

  10. #69
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I made a number of points in a short post. You only responded to two?
    I meant no disrespect, the point I initially responded to was a fundamental premise, so tackling it alone made more sense, imo, than addressing points that later would change if this premise was in question.

    A few of the points were also somewhat taste responses ("I don't think that stands up"). That is hard to debate directly because it is a subjective matter of preference rather than something I can directly debate.

    If there is a specific point that I missed that you thought particularly compelling, please let me know.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    The ONLY possible choices are to kill this poor young girl, "let her starve", or make her a slave!!!
    I'm open to another proposal of course, but remember, the law is applying to this exact scenario, as you point out. So given that, what are the other real-life options?

    I would assume you would suggest that she come back to your property and be protected, right? Would she be responsible for chores at some point? Would she, like every other member of the household, have labor to do to make the household run?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    And I forwarded that any young girl is unlikely to attempt to assert her rights to the same people that just slaughtered her family!! Especially since she can be "beaten with a rod"!
    Well we can at least agree that she likely knows her rights given the provisions and supervision mechanism.

    You are incorrect when you say she can be beaten with a rod here. As I pointed out earlier, only for things like theft, ie "wickedness" is corporal punishment allowed.

    She also, doesn't have to express her rights to the person that slaughtered her family. She has a slew of options, including a Rabbi, judges, or escaping to a town. All of which she has unfettered access to by law. Law that is supervised by the local rabbi and likely judge (the roaming sherriff). She is guaranteed semi-private access to these people every seven days and about 30 additional times a year during holidays.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    So does the moral guidance of the Bible relate to "back then", or then and now?
    In general or this provision? This provision is limited to the geographic land-mass that was ancient Israel explicitely. That was part of the initial discussion I put forward to future. This was not a general moral principle applied universally like "Do not murder." Its context and prohibitions are extremely confinging to a specific time and place (the settlement of the promised land by Israel). Hence if you took a slave as part of a different conflict or outside of the direct defense of that state, you had sinned (ie broken the law). If you moved the slave outside of the borders of Israel they were automatically freed.

    Importantly, if you left the borders of Israel to settle somewhere else, you could not own slaves. And remember that the populations of Israel and Judah were forcibly removed from Israel during the diaspora, essentially ending this concept in Jewish law.

    It is important to see that other legal provisions don't have this kind of provision. None of the ten commandments has this kind of contextual or other legal limitation for example. Thus we can answer your question, yes it applies then and now, but none of us live in a situation where it is permissible.

    It would be like saying that eating a dodo is legal (I don't believe it is on the endangered speicies list). Sure, but none of us have the ability to do that.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Squatch, for the last time, there is no conflation other than your own errors.
    You say that, but Mican also understands that word in the context I mentioned. As do the dictionary's editors since they only use the word as a verb in a situation where a requirement, rather than a permission is offered.

    Regardless, if you simply mean it as something that is permissible, let's adopt that as future's definition for the purpose of debate. So in your OP, the statement should be read as:

    1. The bible implicitly condones and explicitly allows for slavery.


    rather than:

    1. The bible implicitly condones and explicitly requires slavery.

    Is that correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I've corrected you repeatedly, but it's all irrelevant to the fact that the verb is and has been defined quite clearly, and that definition is in use.
    Ok, may I ask a question then. If something is mandated, is that something mandatory?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Just a suggestion. If things are getting bogged down over a semantic argument over a word, perhaps the concept should be relayed using different words. If you mean "give someone the authority to do X", then just say those words.
    It would seem the reasonable thing to do, which is why I suggested that he use the word "allow" way back on page 2 of this debate. Rather, I think he might be sticking with this point (which ironically only makes the OP harder to support), because the premises required to support his conclusion as described in posts 29 and 32 are incredibly difficult. I think he wants to say, "this is bad, so book is bad" and leave it at that level of sophistication. But what is "bad" requires a bit more thought. What the book actually says requires a bit more thought (english is not hebrew). And, as I think you pointed out, what is the moral option given available real life options, is often more complex than we would like it to be.
    Last edited by Squatch347; September 11th, 2017 at 06:20 AM.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #70
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I meant no disrespect, the point I initially responded to was a fundamental premise, so tackling it alone made more sense, imo, than addressing points that later would change if this premise was in question.

    A few of the points were also somewhat taste responses ("I don't think that stands up"). That is hard to debate directly because it is a subjective matter of preference rather than something I can directly debate.

    If there is a specific point that I missed that you thought particularly compelling, please let me know.
    Actually, for the most part, you have explained a lot I didn't realize from the Bible.

    ---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm open to another proposal of course, but remember, the law is applying to this exact scenario, as you point out. So given that, what are the other real-life options?

    Here you run into some deeper water....
    I just thought, that God, being "Omni everything", might have offered a better solution than a young girl "serving" her father's/brother's killer's wishes as a "slave" be it for life or until SHE can buy her freedom (since her family is dead, who else would pay?).
    I also see your claim that "owning a persons labor" instead of "owning the person( unless you are talking about the supposed "soul" of a person) rather dubious. In general practice as a "slave", it seems it would be hard to tell the difference.

    Even if I just totally grant all you said about slaves rights, I find it "nice" that these slaves were treated better than slaves in the American south. However, they ARE still slaves.

    ---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In general or this provision? This provision is limited to the geographic land-mass that was ancient Israel explicitely. That was part of the initial discussion I put forward to future. This was not a general moral principle applied universally like "Do not murder." Its context and prohibitions are extremely confinging to a specific time and place (the settlement of the promised land by Israel). Hence if you took a slave as part of a different conflict or outside of the direct defense of that state, you had sinned (ie broken the law). If you moved the slave outside of the borders of Israel they were automatically freed.

    Importantly, if you left the borders of Israel to settle somewhere else, you could not own slaves. And remember that the populations of Israel and Judah were forcibly removed from Israel during the diaspora, essentially ending this concept in Jewish law.

    And this is where I shall leave the rest of the debate to you and Future (or whoever else may dare challenge you

    I assumed the Op was referring to whether this system could still be used today (as in N Korea hits the US with an EMP and the US is turned back to the dark ages in seconds).
    Last edited by Squatch347; September 18th, 2017 at 05:24 AM. Reason: Tag Fix

  12. #71
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Actually, for the most part, you have explained a lot I didn't realize from the Bible.
    My pleasure, you've offered some positions I hadn't considered and am glad you entered the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I just thought, that God, being "Omni everything", might have offered a better solution than a young girl "serving" her father's/brother's killer's wishes as a "slave" be it for life or until SHE can buy her freedom (since her family is dead, who else would pay?).
    I think this is a variant of the problem of evil. If God is good, why do we see evil or suffering in the world. Without going too deeply into that rabbit hole, we should remember that God's omnipotence extends only to logical possibilities. When we say that God is omnipotent, we aren't claiming he can create a round square, for example.

    Thus, when confronting the sitution laid out, God is constrained by the reality on the ground, including the reality that we are free creatures and all the disappointment that that can entail.

    So the question is, is that option the best feasible option given the scenario. I think, that given the reality being presented, a situation that protects her life, offers her a path to freedom, guarantees her protection, food, education, and prevents abuse, all wrapped up in a system designed to end is a pretty good option.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    ]I also see your claim that "owning a persons labor" instead of "owning the person( unless you are talking about the supposed "soul" of a person) rather dubious. In general practice as a "slave", it seems it would be hard to tell the difference.
    From a 20th Century perspective I fully understand that. We are accustomed to overlooking that form of identity. This clause wasn't written for us however (remember it was designed to end no later than the Babaloynian diaspora), so we should consider it from a Jewish, and preferably, pre-diaspora Jewish perspective.

    For the Jews of Ancient Israel this was a very meaningful distinction. Remember, God gave them the Promised Land, but specifically said 'you don't own this land, I do, you can harvest what you want from it, but it is not yours by right, but by grace.' (paraphrase of Joshua). They were well aware that it could be removed from them at any time based on their misdeeds. In that context owning the output, but not the mechanism is more coherent I think.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    And this is where I shall leave the rest of the debate to you and Future (or whoever else may dare challenge you

    I assumed the Op was referring to whether this system could still be used today (as in N Korea hits the US with an EMP and the US is turned back to the dark ages in seconds).
    Fair point. The answer would be no to that question. (I too worry about an EMP).
    "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.


  13. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You say that, but Mican also understands that word in the context I mentioned. As do the dictionary's editors since they only use the word as a verb in a situation where a requirement, rather than a permission is offered.
    First, this is not a response to my statement that the only conflation is your own errors. Remember, you said that I "have conflated the permissive concept of allow with the more restrictive concept of madate imo", even though I have repeatedly pointed out for you and corrected your misuse of the noun "mandate", which does imply a requirement. I have not conflated anything.
    Look, it's really simple: You use a word as it is defined. If you're not sure about something, you can check a dictionary to see how it is defined and use it that way. Hint: when reading, check to see if the word in question is somewhere between a subject and object - that means it's a verb (yay!), but if it's before or after another verb - that means it's a noun (oh no!).
    What you shouldn't do: Repeatedly misinterpret a verb to be a noun with a completely different meaning. You made this error in posts 23, 39, 54, 63 - and each time I corrected you on it. I understand how this could be difficult initially, especially since they are spelled the same, but there's really no excuse after being repeatedly corrected on it.

    Second, I already explained to you in post #62 how the example sentences work perfectly fine with the definition under which they are listed. So your claim that because Mican agrees with you proves that the dictionary editors meant to use it in the requirement context is simply ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Regardless, if you simply mean it as something that is permissible, let's adopt that as future's definition for the purpose of debate.
    Wow. No. You really have to stop this nonsense. For the last time, I'm using the dictionary definition: to give someone authority to do something. This is not "future's definition". Why is that so hard for you to understand and accept?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, may I ask a question then. If something is mandated, is that something mandatory?
    Again, for the last time, something which is mandated, based on the definition provided, is something which someone has been given authority to do. Whether it is also mandatory is not part of the definition, and is therefore not relevant when using the verb as it is defined.

    From my last post, you appear to have ignored, based on your response:
    You seem to be wholly incapable of wrapping your head around (not sure if it's a comprehension issue or just plain stubbornness) the simple fact that "to mandate something" simply means "to give someone authority to do something" as defined simply. Whether the action is required, or there's an actual mandate is not mentioned nor relevant. What's being communicated by the sentences using this verb defined in this way is simply that someone is given authority to do something. So when the bible provides clear instructions for how slaves are to be obtained and treated, the bible is giving authority to do something (in this case slavery), hence the statement that the bible mandates slavery. The bible mandates slavery.

    So are you ready to finally accept the definition as provided by multiple sources and cede the fact that the bible mandates slavery?

  14. #73
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    To clarify, there are multiple definitions of "mandate" and one of the definitions does directly refer to commanding action:

    verb (used with object), mandated, mandating.
    10.
    to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law:
    The state legislature mandated an increase in the minimum wage.
    11.
    to order or require; make mandatory :


    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mandate?s=t

    And I personally have always thought the word did mean "command" although I do recognize that it also means "authorize". But consider that the current use of the word is clearly hampering the debate over slavery. I counted and there have been nine posts between you two that do nothing but argue over the word "mandate" as opposed to the issue of slavery and the bible.

    So assuming you actually do want to get back to debating slavery and the bible I strongly suggest that you just use the word "authorize" and "command".

    Or maybe you guys do prefer to argue over a particular word. While it's off-topic, I guess it's a debate. But again, assuming you want to debate the slavery and the bible, it seems pretty clear that using a different word for "authorize", like for example, "authorize" is what should happen.

  15. #74
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I counted and there have been nine posts between you two that do nothing but argue over the word "mandate" as opposed to the issue of slavery and the bible.
    Really?? Only nine posts (not that I'm questioning your ability to count to nine or your patience to count them all, it just seems like soo many more.....

    It does seem this point needs to be agreed to for the debate to move forward. I didn't think owning a slave was universal in those days, so I'm guessing some people did not own slaves. So even if the Bible "commanded" it, I don't think everyone was doing it. So perhaps for just the purpose of moving the debate forward, you both could agree that say "the Bible explicitly has instructions for acquiring, keeping, and the caring for slaves, and it is the moral thing to do" or some such that would satisfy both of you.

    I'm not sure the significance is that great from, "the Bible is good with slavery" vs "the Bible expects that ALL WILL own slaves" in this particular debate???

    Just a thought, forgive me if I am getting in the way.
    Last edited by Belthazor; September 26th, 2017 at 02:35 PM.

  16. #75
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    To clarify, there are multiple definitions of "mandate" and one of the definitions does directly refer to commanding action.
    I'm aware that words often have multiple definitions. You have to agree, however, that since I provided the definition in use quite some time ago, and in no uncertain terms, this is completely irrelevant. To repeat: there really is no excuse for any confusion at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But consider that the current use of the word is clearly hampering the debate over slavery. I counted and there have been nine posts between you two that do nothing but argue over the word "mandate" as opposed to the issue of slavery and the bible. So assuming you actually do want to get back to debating slavery and the bible I strongly suggest that you just use the word "authorize" and "command". Or maybe you guys do prefer to argue over a particular word. While it's off-topic, I guess it's a debate. But again, assuming you want to debate the slavery and the bible, it seems pretty clear that using a different word for "authorize", like for example, "authorize" is what should happen.
    First, what's hampering the debate is not the current use of the word, but Squatch's stubbornness in not accepting what the word means and how it's being used.

    Further, whether the bible mandates slavery is part of the OP and, therefore, part of the debate. If you'd like, we can add that the bible also authorizes slavery and provides commands for how it should be done. But again, to repeat for hopefully the last time now, this is the definition of "mandate". Any further discussion of what the word really means other than agreeing that it means what it means and that the bible mandates slavery is simply a waste of time. Also, I find your insistence on me changing the OP just to satisfy Squatch's inability to understand what has repeatedly been explained to him somewhat biased. Especially since you've already agreed and accepted the definition which is in use by the OP. Why aren't you instead entreating him to just accept the definition as provided and stop this nonsense?

    Finally, I'd like to point out that the way the bible handles slavery does have elements of "requirements", or "mandates" (noun), if you think about it. Since the bible provides instructions for how slavery is to be done, then it's not just a question of the bible "allowing" or "authorizing" slavery, and that's it. It goes as far as to say "you must do slavery in this way".

    So it's not the bible saying "you must do slavery" in terms of slavery itself being mandatory, but the ways in which people are allowed to do slavery are mandatory.
    And that goes back to the definition of the verb "to mandate": give someone authority to act in a certain way. To do slavery, they must (mandatory/required) do it in a certain way which is stipulated by the laws which mandate it.
    Indeed, it's a fairly stupid idea to require that people do something which requires resources which they might not have. Which is why the bible mandates slavery in the way it does. Which again proves that the bible was not written as the commandments of a deity, but simply as an expression of the morality of the people at that time.

    Bottom line: For the last time now, the OP states that the bible mandates slavery. This is what the OP states. When the bible provides clear instructions for how slaves are to be obtained and treated, the bible is giving authority to do slavery, hence the statement that the bible mandates slavery. The bible mandates slavery.

    ---------- Post added at 09:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Really?? Only nine posts (not that I'm questioning your ability to count to nine or your patience to count them all, it just seems like soo many more.....
    I also thought it's been more. In any case, this just goes to show even more why it's important to read carefully and not confuse verbs for nouns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So perhaps for just the purpose of moving the debate forward, you both could agree that say "the Bible explicitly has instructions for acquiring, keeping, and the caring for slaves"
    You realize that this is basically the meaning of the verb "mandate", right? So, if we were to agree this, then we'd be agreeing on the use of the verb mandate. What then is so hard about just using the actual verb?

    It really is mind-boggling how, when people are repeatedly corrected on their misunderstanding of a word, they'll still insist on others accepting their incorrect interpretation. It's like how indigenous people were mistakenly called Indians (funny bit from Louis CK). I don't know, I guess it's an American thing.

  17. #76
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'm aware that words often have multiple definitions. You have to agree, however, that since I provided the definition in use quite some time ago, and in no uncertain terms, this is completely irrelevant. To repeat: there really is no excuse for any confusion at this point.
    I disagree. I've ALWAYS thought the primary definition of "mandate" means something along the lines of "require" and that's what the word means to me. I can intellectually acknowledge someone using the word with a different definition but it's difficult to go with a different definition than the one I've always used. Nor do I think your definition is exactly what you think it is. Look at the first definition I provided.

    "10.
    to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law:
    The state legislature mandated an increase in the minimum wage."


    In that example "authorize" meant to make a law increasing the minimum wage. I assume what you meant by authorize is to allow one to do something which gives them the option of doing it or not doing it. So going by that "authorize" might mean something that DOES happen (a law is made) instead of giving someone the option of doing something.

    And to be clear - I am not seeking to debate definitions with you. I'm saying that your position regarding the definition is not necessarily as clear-cut or non-confusing as you think it is. I find the definition you are using kind of confusing because it really contradicts the definition as I've understood it all of my life and the definition I've found regarding authorize does not clearly mean that "mandate" includes "optional" but instead does mean "mandatory".

    And regardless of whether such confusion is justified or not, it's clear that your use of the word is causing confusion and likewise has lead to multiple posts debating nothing but the use of the word. And it seems pretty clear that continued use of the word will cause more of the same. If you want to blame other parties for the confusion, you may. But that doesn't change the fact that continued use has, and will, bog down the debate in semantic arguing.

    Regardless of who is more to blame for the semantic bog-down, you can't deny that I've offered a solution to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Further, whether the bible mandates slavery is part of the OP and, therefore, part of the debate. If you'd like, we can add that the bible also authorizes slavery and provides commands for how it should be done. But again, to repeat for hopefully the last time now, this is the definition of "mandate". Any further discussion of what the word really means other than agreeing that it means what it means and that the bible mandates slavery is simply a waste of time. Also, I find your insistence on me changing the OP just to satisfy Squatch's inability to understand what has repeatedly been explained to him somewhat biased. Especially since you've already agreed and accepted the definition which is in use by the OP. Why aren't you instead entreating him to just accept the definition as provided and stop this nonsense?
    Because I'm not taking sides in the semantic argument. I'm neither going to tell him that he's incorrect on the definition nor telling you that are incorrect on the definition. I'm saying both or you should just agree to disagree on the use of that word and use different words. That will help move the debate forward.

    And Squatch is willing to do that so he's not stubbornly insisting that you use his definition. He's apparently willing to agree to disagree. How about you?
    Last edited by mican333; September 27th, 2017 at 07:52 AM.

  18. #77
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Wow, I guess it really is an American thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I've ALWAYS thought the primary definition of "mandate" means something along the lines of "require" and that's what the word means to me.
    So what? I always thought that the lyrics to Purple Haze went "Excuse me, while I kiss this guy". But when someone corrected me and provided the correct meaning, I accepted that I was wrong. The fact that I always thought differently is irrelevant to the fact that I was corrected and can now stop being wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In that example "authorize" meant to make a law increasing the minimum wage. I assume what you meant by authorize is to allow one to do something which gives them the option of doing it or not doing it. So going by that "authorize" might mean something that DOES happen (a law is made) instead of giving someone the option of doing something.
    As I explained to Squatch, this is irrelevant. Whether it is also mandatory/optional is not part of the definition or true meaning of the sentence. This insistence on focusing only on whether the action is required and ignoring the fact that the definition simply refers to how the action is performed is truly astounding.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And regardless of whether such confusion is justified or not, it's clear that your use of the word is causing confusion and likewise has lead to multiple posts debating nothing but the use of the word.
    For the last time yet again, it's not "my use of the word". IT'S THE DEFINITION.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm saying both or you should just agree to disagree on the use of that word and use different words.
    I've already explained why the use of mandate will remain part of the OP. In any case, since you've taken it upon yourself to inject your opinions on what others should do in their discussion, perhaps you could confirm whether you now understand the meaning of the word and agree that the bible does mandate slavery? That is what the debate is about, after all.

  19. #78
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Wow, I guess it really is an American thing.

    So what? I always thought that the lyrics to Purple Haze went "Excuse me, while I kiss this guy". But when someone corrected me and provided the correct meaning, I accepted that I was wrong. The fact that I always thought differently is irrelevant to the fact that I was corrected and can now stop being wrong.
    But he is not wrong. There IS a definition of "mandate" that very much aligns with "require". So it's not right/wrong but which one a person INTENDS to use. You want to use one definition and he wants to use the other one. No one has to agree with the other. So you can agree to disagree or you can continue to argue the definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    For the last time yet again, it's not "my use of the word". IT'S THE DEFINITION.
    It's not THE definition. It's A definition. And there's ANOTHER valid definition also.

    It seem that either you two need to settle one one of them and if you won't, then just use different words and avoid further confusion. Or you can continue debating the word (which looks like what's going to happen).

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I've already explained why the use of mandate will remain part of the OP. In any case, since you've taken it upon yourself to inject your opinions on what others should do in their discussion, perhaps you could confirm whether you now understand the meaning of the word and agree that the bible does mandate slavery? That is what the debate is about, after all.
    Considering my whole point is that continue to use the word bogs down the definition in a semantic argument, I'm definitely not going to participate in this semantic argument.

    But anyway, I'm done with this. I've explained how you can move the debate beyond a semantic argument and you can either take my advice and move the debate forward or just stay bogged down in a semantic argument. I assume you're going with the latter option and I'm no longer going to try to convince you to do otherwise.

  20. #79
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But he is not wrong. There IS a definition of "mandate" that very much aligns with "require". So it's not right/wrong but which one a person INTENDS to use. You want to use one definition and he wants to use the other one. No one has to agree with the other. So you can agree to disagree or you can continue to argue the definition.
    To ignore (either wilfully or by mistake) a definition (the primary definition in multiple sources) which supports that the bible mandates slavery and argue that the bible doesn't mandate slavery makes him wrong.
    Seriously dude, after so many posts explaining to him which definition is in use for the OP, his continued insistence on using another definition also makes him wrong. Especially when he repeatedly made the mistake of using the noun "mandate" when attempting to support his claim that the bible doesn't mandate slavery. The reason I needed to repeatedly correct him was because he was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not THE definition. It's A definition. And there's ANOTHER valid definition also.
    It's the definition in use by the OP, as confirmed repeatedly. It's also the primary definition as per multiple sources. That there is another definition is completely irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It seem that either you two need to settle one one of them and if you won't, then just use different words and avoid further confusion. Or you can continue debating the word (which looks like what's going to happen).
    Again, the OP is very clear, and the definition has been provided repeatedly, so there is no justification for any further confusion. You say we should use different words to avoid confusion, but do you honestly think that there could be any confusion at this point about that I mean when I say the bible mandates slavery? At this point, there's no debating the word - I've corrected and/or responded to any mistakes/misunderstandings Squatch has made. What he needs to do now is conceded that the bible mandates slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Considering my whole point is that continue to use the word bogs down the definition in a semantic argument, I'm definitely not going to participate in this semantic argument.
    You already accepted the definition in use by the OP, so it's no longer a semantic argument. Based on your now correct understanding what the verb "mandate" means, don't you agree that the bible mandates slavery? You refusal to confirm where you stand on this simple point yet again indicates your bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But anyway, I'm done with this. I've explained how you can move the debate beyond a semantic argument and you can either take my advice and move the debate forward or just stay bogged down in a semantic argument. I assume you're going with the latter option and I'm no longer going to try to convince you to do otherwise.
    And I've provided numerous explanations and corrections for Squatch to be able move beyond his error. I have no problem continuing the debate, but I don't see why I should change the perfectly clear OP just because of someone's stubbornness and inability to accept that they've made an error in their understanding.

  21. #80
    ODN Community Regular

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

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'll try to keep this a short as possible.
    To address slavery in the bible from a moral perspective, it is defined here as: "owning a person as property".

    1. The bible implicitly condones and explicitly mandates slavery.
    Some common examples:
    - Leviticus 25:44-46 states that non-Hebrew slaves are to be acquired from neighbouring nations. They, along with any children they have while enslaved, are the possessions of their masters permanently, and they are passed on to the masters' children as possessions.
    - Exodus 21:2-7 provides instructions on how male and female Hebrew slaves are to be treated.
    - Exodus 21:20-21 states that slave owners can beat their slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two.

    2. The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery.

    Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.
    For 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So I hope that satisfies. We've established there are regulations for treatment of slaves (men, women, Hebrews and Gentiles), that the NT has scripture opposing slavery, and that even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter since it isn't expressly established by the OP that slavery is immoral. Though I admit, this presents an odd issue for both of us. On the one hand, I can't argue that you have to establish that slavery is immoral for the conclusion to follow if I provide scripture plainly implying that it is (which would be why Paul is telling the man to free the slave), and similarly, you can't argue that the Bible doesn't oppose slavery if you cite the passage to support that it views it's immoral.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

 

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