Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exactly what does that mean in terms of law. How is the this measured? Does your country have laws that say something like this? I assume there are no slaves there so is the law of the land "do not treat humans beings as products" and how does not establish that someone has done this exactly? If you use them like things to get what you want, does that quality as violating the above law?
Do you think Sadam Hussain was a tyrant? Do you know that the Christians begged Bush not to invade because Hussain would not let the Muslims slaughter the Christians? That is right. He protected them as Christians. I can think of more tyrants in history who protected some people from injustice.
This is probably not going to go well if you do not see the difference between measurable laws and vague "be nice" laws. Seems like you just want to accuse God of evil as well. Understanding the matter does not seem to be of interest. You are not alone.
Do you write posts of the immoral connections of Santa Claus? Do you write about Santa Claus at all? If not, that santa clause is not the same category as God. Him your write about. Why?
When you extract bits to present the picture you want changing what was actually said, it is called editing and changing the meaning.
You have no interests in the circumstances. You just want to accuse God of evil. It is like if I wrote, "A man stood over the frightened woman with the sharpest knife in the room" and you cried "cruel and evil man" only to have edited out the fact that he was a surgeon about to save her life.
OK, Par5, I give up. You WANT to believe God is evil and no one will convince you otherwise. You will certainly understand less of the Bible than most. "Whoever has not, what he has will be taken away." You will need to find someone else to express your hatred for God. I tried and you do not want to be corrected on matters that are relatively easy to understand.
I didn't. See the post above. Again, this is another case of projecting your present understanding on sociology and legal systems of the past.
1) The immediate context of "Foreign slaves" is not .... drive over to Mexico and buy some slaves off the market.
There were no clearly defined national borders. Countries and regions were defined by territorial allegiances between tribal entities that were comprised of family clans.
When these laws were outlined in context of Exodus, the context is "doing business" with surrounding tribes.
Business relationships in the past revolved around:
1) Trading goods, and animals
2) Trading workforce
3) Securing relationships through marriages
The entirety of Exodus 25 deals with guidelines for business relationships internally and externally.
For example....
You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
What do you think the above means?You just buy a random person walking on the street?
I grew up in Turkmenistan, where locals still save up $50,000 as a dowry payment for a wife for their son. Would that be an example of sex slave trading?
Understand the context of the culture first, and then we can have some nuanced conversation. Otherwise you are merely triggered by your own projections on the subject matter.
So why is your opinion any more valid than that of the local panhandler's opinion?
I don't need your permission so there is no sense getting snotty. We both agree your contempt for slavery in the Bible is nothing more than your opinion. Opinion of a bible illiterate bible despiser.
They had plenty of reason for slavery in their time. What you do not have is any reason to impose judgement against them since reason is amoral. They can reasonably build hospitals or concentration camps.
There's no question about it, but if America would be reduced to apocalyptic wasteland due to some event... then all of the "American morality" would be largely irrelevant to the context in which it existed in. It would be much more nuanced and unpredictable reality filled with moral dilemmas that constantly conflict moral ideals.
I think you'd first need to elaborate on what you would perceive as "divine inspiration" before you can make that claim.
I take an Existentialism viewpoint, and at any turn of history, the morality that we have IS a human consensus. There is no other way around it in terms of how we perceive it to be. But mere consensus is NOT ENOUGH to serve as a moral grounds for anything, because we are talking about moral pluralism, in which case there is no common ground for including minority opinion.
On top of that, in your case, you seem to ignore the continuum of development as to how you got where you are in the first place. You seem to be critiquing these issues from some vacuous elevated position of "present day morality" as though you've arrived there apart from any foundational development that took place over several millennia that you merely inherit.
If you can demonstrate that we got here apart from the Judeo-Greko-Roman-Christian moral foundation we have... you'd have a point.
Biblical laws, especially in OT ARE defined as contextual nuanced principles that define a legal system of a nation in context of whatever environment such nation existed.
The environment of the day was harsh, and you simply can't apply our modern-day "abundance-driven morality" to their day where such abundance was lacking. There would be different moral context if you had unlimited supply of water, as opposed to you have only enough water to sustain X number of people.
It's a much more nuanced reality, where moral dilemmas are not some hypothetical concept, but something that people would face daily. In such, what's "jacked up" is the environment that these people are against and have to claw and band together to survive. In such, the context of morality is quite different.
Of course.
My grandmother survived Stalinist Holodomor, and she was telling horror stories about people who fed their dead children to their surviving children. Thus, you have little clue of what some people have to go through when it comes to picking one moral ideal over other.
I would not say that morals are "subjective" as much that morals are contextual. These describe ideal paradigm of behavior based on context that such behavior exist in.
For example, a person would be considered a nutcase if they would all of a sudden began acting like a rock-star in the middle of ... let's say a funeral. If they are on a stage at a concert, then the context is more fitting.
Thus morality can be absolute in certain contextual setting of that absolute.
Likewise, morality and knowledge are not separate concepts. Morality is a subset of what we would consider knowledge, and it exists as a network of interrelated behavioral concepts. What we would describe as "morality", would be a subset of contextual concepts and principles that we consider to be of utmost importance for our survival.
Hence, you are confusing objectively best possible scenario given ALL KNOWN possibilities, and "best possible" contextual behavior in a scope of SOME known possibilities.
Likewise, there's some pragmatic concepts to consider like, what is morality for? The obvious answer would be to serve and direct our behavior in such a way that ensures our survival and flourishing.
Back to the example of my grandmother. Would it be immoral to feed your dead children to your other children? Well... nominally it would trigger an SJW Earthquake if that would happened in American culture today. But if you move context of a desperate mother trying to get her children through a winter where all of her food was taken away... it's a different context. It's a context horrors of which few people can possibly imagine.
Hence, there are nuances to consider that are not immediately obvious.
