Is Slavery Moral?

[cvanwey]

I do not believe you.

I have no hostility toward you, I love you very much as a fellow child of God, but I'm not going to waste my words where they have no room for growth. The only thing productive we could talk about is why you recoil the moment God calls your worldview into question. I have sat and watched it happen, so who is God to you and why do you recoil?

I'm vexed and perplexed? Truly I am? Why even respond, if you feel I'm 'playing games', or 'wasting time'. You actually know very little about me, or have only selectively read some of my specific replies...

As I've stated numerous times now, I was a devout Christian follower for decades. I prayed for proof, in accordance with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23, for decades. Never once did I feel I receive any kind or type of revelation, experience, or sign from any apparent divine entity. I felt like I was just talking to myself. In which, I finally started to conclude, that I most likely am only talking to myself.

So please stop insinuating what you 'think' you 'know' about me. You actually know as much about me, as I fully admit I do NOT know about you.

So if you are going to even 'waste' your time responding, keep it in context to the posts, and please stop trying to play amateur psychologist.

When I read the Bible, it becomes more and more apparent that much of it was written to enforce certain wanted dictates. And a great way to do it, would certainly be to state it came from God.

So as I've been presenting now, over and over again, please justify how anyone other than humans wrote the verses in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46, while passing them off as claiming they came from Yahweh.

Otherwise, please stop wasting time with this irrelevant banter.

Thank you

 

[Sanoy]

I'm vexed and perplexed? Truly I am? Why even respond, if you feel I'm 'playing games', or 'wasting time'. You actually know very little about me, or have only selectively read some of my specific replies...

As I've stated numerous times now, I was a devout Christian follower for decades. I prayed for proof, in accordance with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23, for decades. Never once did I feel I received any kind or type of revelation, experience, or sign from any apparent divine entity. I felt like I was just talking to myself. In which, I finally started to conclude, that I most likely am only talking to myself.

So please stop insinuating what you 'think' you 'know' about me. You actually know as much about me, as I fully admit I do NOT know about you.

So if you are going to even 'waste' your time responding, keep it context to the posts, and please stop trying to play amateur psychologist.

When I read the Bible, it becomes more and more apparent that much of it was written to enforce certain wanted dictates. And a great way to do it, would certainly be to state it came from God.

So as I've been presenting now, over and over again, please justify how anyone other than humans wrote the verses in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46, while passing them off as claiming they came from Yahweh.

Otherwise, please stop wasting time with this irrelevant banter.

Thank you

I can only have the perception I have. This doesn't help that. I have seen angels, been miraculously healed, and even been attacked by demons to the point of death or possession. We have different experiences. Perhaps we could talk about those differences? What did being a Christian mean to you?

 

[cvanwey]

I can only have the perception I have. This doesn't help that.

If you want to help, demonstrate truth in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46, using your demonstrated and applied reasoning and logic.

My 'perception' is that you know you can't. My 'perception', as that everything I said in the last few posts may be fairly correct. My 'perception' is that you most likely somewhat agree with my final assessment; that these verses were written by humans, stating they 'came from God', to enforce what they wanted to enforce in the time it was written. Which is, to enslave people

Thnx

 

[Sanoy]

My 'perception' is that you know you can't. My 'perception', as that everything I said in the last few posts may be fairly correct. My 'perception' is that you most likely somewhat agree with my final assessment; that these verses were written by humans, stating they 'came from God', to enforce what they wanted to enforce in the time it was written. Which is, to enslave people

Thnx

You have asked me this question before and I have told you the Bible was written by humans. Several people have told you this in fact.

Would you like to talk about those differences and what Christinaity meant to you or do you want to continue with specious polemics?

 

[devolved]

Again, not trying to straw man you, and correct me if I'm off base.... I'm honestly not patronizing you....

So basically, even a deist, Muslim, or other, is well justified to conclude that Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 are written by humans, with self-serving intentions to 'approve' slavery (while appealing to most people's desire to believe in a God, 'and if God says it, then it must be okay')?.?.?.

And even if I believe in God, that does not mean the Bible was actually inspired by God, and that it is much safer to conclude that the Bible is an ancient collection of books that people still follow, rationalize, etc, to continue to align with their own reality?

Furthermore, that 2 Timothy 3:16 (All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness), is just another piece of text written by men, and men alone?

I guess, I can answer several of your posts here, instead of answering individual questions. I would say that Bible is not what most people would say it is - "Every word is a word of God" type of book. I disagree.

Your logic goes along the lines of:

1) God is described in Lv 25 regulating slavery, and doesn't just outright saying it's wrong
2) We hold slavery as immoral
3) Therefore that particular version of Biblical God should be dismissed
4) Therefore Christianity is a wrong model of God

The problem is that reality, the way we experience it is bound to time and space, and one's location in space and arrangement of that particular reality in time.

So, when you are at sea, it makes no sense to tell you, "Make sure you don't dig large holes in the ground, because people may fall and hurt themselves". It would be an absurd request to make in that particular context.

All morality is, when we unpack the word, is a communication of context of reality, and how we are to behave in such situation. Some morals will transcend a single situation, and can be applied to multiple situations. Many different competing moral ideals may apply to a single situation. Do you lie or do you prevent NAZIs from capturing Jews? Do you save the the pregnant mother who will likely die during childbirth, or do you save the baby?

The problem with certain moral evaluation of any given situation is that we don't see the entirety of the context in order to make a valid judgement of what is the best case scenario.

So, when you read Lv 25, the cultural context is largely missing for you. All you read is a moral pronouncement that you may buy people from the surrounding nations, and that you can keep them as long as you want. So, what your brain tends to do is to fill this hole with the only context you can provide - your immediate one. And, since in our immediate context slavery is immoral, therefore slavery should be immoral in this context.

Hence, if we merely look at the context of someone lying to a question of "Are there Jews in this house or not?".... then we can say that this person is a liar. But you have to understand that morality is not a collection of singular and stand-alone propositions that you can cast one by one and see if any given person is moral or immoral. Morality is a complex web of priorities that may shift with any given situation.

And no, I'm not justifying slavery here. Just like you, I would agree that without proper justification, forcing people to do what they don't want to do is not what we find appealing as individuals, which in a nutshell is what slavery is.

But there are other contexts of slavery that are not obvious, like voluntary servitude, debt repayment, etc.

I think the immediate desire here is to force the worst possible context on this concept and say "All slavery is just bunch of guys capturing people, chaining them up, and getting them to force labor by beating them with sticks all day".

And if you really think about it, it takes a good amount of effort apart from entirety of society enforcing such concept. The only way that slavery is possible is if you have laws that punish people by sheltering run-away slaves. Yet, that's not what we find in the OT:

" If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."

It would be a really odd proclamation to make for a nation that's in favor of enforcing slavery.

 

[cvanwey]

You have asked me this question before and I have told you the Bible was written by humans. Several people have told you this in fact.

Would you like to talk about those differences and what Christinaity meant to you or do you want to continue with specious polemics?

I've read your answers, but you are not answering my actual questions...

So I will ask again, in a different way...

Let's assume God exists. Lets assume the the actual God is Yahweh. Okay, this is not a game. But to get anywhere, we must reconcile some conclusions...

Okay, now, for starters, demonstrate that Yahweh inspired Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25"44-46.

If you say He did not, then we have a HUGE problem.
If you say He did, we have a HUGE problem.

So which one is it? Did God inspire these specific verses, or not?

 

[Sanoy]

I've read your answers, but you are not answering my actual questions...

So I will ask again, in a different way...

Let's assume God exists. Lets assume the the actual God is Yahweh. Okay, this is not a game. But to get anywhere, we must reconcile some conclusions...

Okay, now, for starters, demonstrate that Yahweh inspired Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25"44-46.

If you say He did not, then we have a HUGE problem.
If you say He did, we have a HUGE problem.

So which one is it? Did God inspire these specific verses, or not?

I have told you twice before. The proposition that God inspired the Bible requires two propositions. Those two propositions must both exist simultaneously. You can't just assume a place holder God. He has to have properties for the second proposition to work.

I think devolved did a good job explaining those verses that should satisfy a sincere person. You however have an emotionally driven polemic. The only fruitful conversation we can have is over what Christianity meant to you. That is the crux of why you recoil and engage in these polemics.

 

[devolved]

Let's assume God exists. Lets assume the the actual God is Yahweh. Okay, this is not a game. But to get anywhere, we must reconcile some conclusions...

Okay, now, for starters, demonstrate that Yahweh inspired Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25"44-46.

Let me draw a different analogy, so it may be a bit more clear.

“As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas, and land on barbarous coasts.”

Now, demonstrate that was inspired by Melville's experience at the sea?

Well, you can run to the publisher and ask, and they will say it's Melville. We have some recorded experience of Melville at sea. You can ask, yes, I know that you say it's Melville, but can you demonstrate that it's Melville's experience that inspired this particular sentence? They will give you the publishing history records, etc.

And then you still would say... yes, I know you got the history of publishing, but that's not what I'm asking for. Can you demonstrate to me that Melville's experience at sea that inspired this passage?

To which end they will have a puzzled look on their face as to what exactly you are asking.

So... what exactly are you asking for as a demonstration in this case? What would convince you?

 

[cvanwey]

I guess, I can answer several of your posts here, instead of answering individual questions. I would say that Bible is not what most people would say it is - "Every word is a word of God" type of book. I disagree.

Your logic goes along the lines of:

1) God is described in Lv 25 regulating slavery, and doesn't just outright saying it's wrong
2) We hold slavery as immoral
3) Therefore that particular version of Biblical God should be dismissed
4) Therefore Christianity is a wrong model of God

The problem is that reality, the way we experience it is bound to time and space, and one's location in space and arrangement of that particular reality in time.

So, when you are at sea, it makes no sense to tell you, "Make sure you don't dig large holes in the ground, because people may fall and hurt themselves". It would be an absurd request to make in that particular context.

All morality is, when we unpack the word, is a communication of context of reality, and how we are to behave in such situation. Some morals will transcend a single situation, and can be applied to multiple situations. Many different competing moral ideals may apply to a single situation. Do you lie or do you prevent NAZIs from capturing Jews? Do you save the the pregnant mother who will likely die during childbirth, or do you save the baby?

The problem with certain moral evaluation of any given situation is that we don't see the entirety of the context in order to make a valid judgement of what is the best case scenario.

So, when you read Lv 25, the cultural context is largely missing for you. All you read is a moral pronouncement that you may buy people from the surrounding nations, and that you can keep them as long as you want. So, what your brain tends to do is to fill this hole with the only context you can provide - your immediate one. And, since in our immediate context slavery is immoral, therefore slavery should be immoral in this context.

Hence, if we merely look at the context of someone lying to a question of "Are there Jews in this house or not?".... then we can say that this person is a liar. But you have to understand that morality is not a collection of singular and stand-alone propositions that you can cast one by one and see if any given person is moral or immoral. Morality is a complex web of priorities that may shift with any given situation.

And no, I'm not justifying slavery here. Just like you, I would agree that without proper justification, forcing people to do what they don't want to do is not what we find appealing as individuals, which in a nutshell is what slavery is.

But there are other contexts of slavery that are not obvious, like voluntary servitude, debt repayment, etc.

I think the immediate desire here is to force the worst possible context on this concept and say "All slavery is just bunch of guys capturing people, chaining them up, and getting them to force labor by beating them with sticks all day".

And if you really think about it, it takes a good amount of effort apart from entirety of society enforcing such concept. The only way that slavery is possible is if you have laws that punish people by sheltering run-away slaves. Yet, that's not what we find in the OT:

" If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."

It would be a really odd proclamation to make for a nation that's in favor of enforcing slavery.

Thank you for your reply. However, this does not address my prior observations

Jesus never 'updates' or 'corrects' the prior laws. Quite the contrary. He further advocates the continuance of such slavery dictates, as cited from my OP.

So truthfully, if humanity completely started over, having amnesia, and were only given the Bible to make a fresh start, they would read all these verses, and conclude, 'hey, slavery is (a okay).' Why? because it was not only written to be applied to a certain time or context. It was never updated.

Slavery is never denounced. In the future, any dictator, or other authority, could impose slavery as law again, and STILL use the Bible as their objective moral authority to impose it.

So I'm sorry, but your response, though intelligent, does not address or reason the issue I have laid forth.

Sorry.

 

[cvanwey]

I have told you twice before. The proposition that God inspired the Bible requires two propositions. Those two propositions must both exist simultaneously. You can't just assume a place holder God. He has to have properties for the second proposition to work.

I think devolved did a good job explaining those verses that should satisfy a sincere person. You however have an emotionally driven polemic. The only fruitful conversation we can have is over what Christianity meant to you. That is the crux of why you recoil and engage in these polemics.

I'm interested in justification to the cited verses from my OP. Not your evaluation on my assessed 'polemic.' You have yet to demonstrate that Exodus and Leviticus are given by God. Instead, you appear to be more concerned with attempting to assess my attempts at 'recoiling.'

I have yet to read a response, addressing my observation, 'that humans wrote these verses, and stated they came from God, to make sure they were viewed as objective.'

 

[Sanoy]

I'm interested in justification to the cited verses from my OP. Not your evaluation on my assessed 'polemic.' You have yet to demonstrate that Exodus and Leviticus are given by God. Instead, you appear to be more concerned with attempting to assess my attempts at 'recoiling.'

I have yet to read a response, addressing my observation, 'that humans wrote these verses, and stated they came from God, to make sure they were viewed as objective.'

I'm interested in what happened to you, because that is whats really behind this.

Again though. Humans wrote the Bible. God did not give it. Our paper, our ink, our hand. Your questions make no sense. It's like me asking you "who are you" over and over and not being satisfied with the answer.

 

[cvanwey]

Let me draw a different analogy, so it may be a bit more clear.

“As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas, and land on barbarous coasts.”

Now, demonstrate that was inspired by Melville's experience at the sea?

Well, you can run to the publisher and ask, and they will say it's Melville. We have some recorded experience of Melville at sea. You can ask, yes, I know that you say it's Melville, but can you demonstrate that it's Melville's experience that inspired this particular sentence? They will give you the publishing history records, etc.

And then you still would say... yes, I know you got the history of publishing, but that's not what I'm asking for. Can you demonstrate to me that Melville's experience at sea that inspired this passage?

To which end they will have a puzzled look on their face as to what exactly you are asking.

So... what exactly are you asking for as a demonstration in this case? What would convince you?

I will make it blatantly simple... As I've stated now, several times... Prove anyone other than humans inspired such verses. I know humans exist. I don't know if any God exists. I know humans write stuff. I'm not aware of any Gods whom write stuff.

At this point, I won't even ask to demonstrate Yahweh. Just demonstrate that any human writings, in human history, was actually inspired by anything other than humans.

Because, as you kind of pointed out... I can go to the publisher, and ask if a specific person wrote it. But we are already way ahead, because I at lest know some human wrote it.

Well, for the Bible, I already know humans wrote it. This is the default. Now demonstrate anyone other than humans had any hand within it. I say there was not... And have countless points of direction to result in my conclusion.

For absolute starters, when I read Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46, this is just one of many verses, which appear driven by humans, to support their own needs.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm interested in what happened to you, because that is whats really behind this.

Again though. Humans wrote the Bible. God did not give it. Our paper, our ink, our hand. Your questions make no sense. It's like me asking you "who are you" over and over and not being satisfied with the answer.

If the Bible was written by humans, with no divine inspiration, than how is it objective?

And again with the personal questions, which is not related to the OP in anyway. Was I not clear???? I prayed for 30 years with no response. Seriously?

 

[Sanoy]

If the Bible was written by humans, with no divine inspiration, than how is it objective?

And again with the personal questions, which is not related to the OP in anyway. Was I not clear???? I prayed for 30 years with no response. Seriously?

I didn't say it wasn't written without inspiration. I am saying we wrote it. God didn't hand it to us. Inspiration is intentional. It's mind dependant. It's ostensive. Your proof demand makes no sense.

What did Christianity mean to you?

 

[devolved]

Jesus never 'updates' or 'corrects' the prior laws. Quite the contrary. He further advocates the continuance of such slavery dictates, as cited from my OP.

Sure, but Jesus actually updated the entirety of hierachical relationship principles of one human being to other. When you read Matthew 5 through 7 do you get the sense that Jesus advocated slavery?

Jesus described his mission as revamping the way people thought at the level of human core human relationship. It wasn't to merely proclaim "this thing is right, and this thing is wrong".

So truthfully, if humanity completely started over, having amnesia, and were only given the Bible to make a fresh start, they would read all these verses, and conclude, 'hey, slavery is (a okay).' Why? because it was not only written to be applied to a certain time or context. It was never updated.

Well, it was updated. We are to be slaves to one another in terms of egalitarian approach to servanthood.

That was the whole point of Jesus behaving like a slave when he took off his students sandals and began washing their feed. They were in shock, dismay, and embarrassment. And then he says ... you guys should be "that" to one another.

His point was not to restructure human society by saying X is wrong ... Y is right. His approach was to change our assumptions about how we are to relate to each other, in which case everything else, like slavery fades away.

Now, we can take a selective "verse proofing" approach and say "But verse X says this, therefore it's justified"...

But, ironically, that's what you end up doing when you choose to ignore something like Matthew 5 through 7, or foot washing scene, or even the Crusifiction one.

Slavery is never denounced. In the future, any dictator, or other authority, could impose slavery as law again, and STILL use the Bible as their objective moral authority to impose it.

Certainly, they can, but it wouldn't be because Jesus never said that Slavery is immoral, but rather because people would need to ignore most of what Jesus said about how we are to treat each other.

Actually it was this conflict of Christian ideals that was resulted in

So I'm sorry, but your response, though intelligent, does not address or reason the issue I have laid forth.

It seems to me that short of me pointing you a text in the Bible that "Slavery is immoral" it would mean that somehow slavery is still considered moral?

I'm not exactly sure what you are expecting me to demonstrate specifically.

12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.

The meaning should be clear if you understood that it was generally a slave's Job to wash feet. You call me your teacher and your master, but I'll now be a slave for you. If I... who you think is the greatest among you, would do this. Then you should do this to one another.

Christian context was egalitarian approach to humanity... In fact, MLK would quote:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me to demonstrate beyond that.

Can you be more specific?

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't say it wasn't written without inspiration. I am saying we wrote it. God didn't hand it to us. Inspiration is intentional. It's mind dependant. It's ostensive. Your proof demand makes no sense.

What did Christianity mean to you?

I already know humans wrote it. I already know you stated humans wrote it. However, I'm asking about the 'inspiration' part....

My 'proof demand' makes perfect sense. It is rather bold and assertive to simply state any human written text was actually 'inspired' by a higher power. Yes, many state they are inspired by a higher power all the time. But do YOU only believe these assertions, when coming from a Christian? I doubt such modes of 'validation' are congruent, when applying 'intentional' and 'ostensive' to claims of divinity when speaking for the Qur'an?.?.?

And I'm no longer addressing any other questions, other than demonstrating that the Bible was God given (in reference to slavery)... They are deliberate red herrings...

 

[Sanoy]

I already know humans wrote it. I already know you stated humans wrote it. However, I'm asking about the 'inspiration' part....

My 'proof demand' makes perfect sense. It is rather bold and assertive to simply state any human written text was actually 'inspired' by a higher power. Yes, many state they are inspired by a higher power all the time. But do YOU only believe these assertions, when coming from a Christian? I doubt such modes of 'validation' are congruent, when applying 'intentional' and 'ostensive' to claims of divinity when speaking for the Qur'an?.?.?

And I'm no longer addressing any other questions, other than demonstrating that the Bible was God given (in reference to slavery)... They are deliberate red herrings...

There are thousands of books inspired by other minds. There is nothing controversial about suggesting this book was inspired by another mind, what you find controversial is that God exists, which is why I wouldn't accept your suddenly acquired Theism.

Islam is a monotheistic religion derived from the OT.

What did Christianity mean to you?

 

[devolved]

I will make it blatantly simple... As I've stated now, several times... Prove anyone other than humans inspired such verses. I know humans exist. I don't know if any God exists. I know humans write stuff. I'm not aware of any Gods whom write stuff.

At this point, I won't even ask to demonstrate Yahweh. Just demonstrate that any human writings, in human history, was actually inspired by anything other than humans.

Because, as you kind of pointed out... I can go to the publisher, and ask if a specific person wrote it. But we are already way ahead, because I at lest know some human wrote it.

Well, for the Bible, I already know humans wrote it. This is the default. Now demonstrate anyone other than humans had any hand within it. I say there was not... And have countless points of direction to result in my conclusion.

For absolute starters, when I read Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46, this is just one of many verses, which appear driven by humans, to support their own needs.

Ok I see what you are asking. At least I think I understand now. I think I'd have to take a different approach to answer it, and it will take a couple of paragraphs, as usual .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are asking is:

"If I'm a hypothetical alien landing on this planet, absent of any human historical context... how would I know that Bible is likely a product of human thought, or divine influence, etc.?"

I have to work a bit, and I'll give it a try.

 

[cvanwey]

Sure, but Jesus actually updated the entirety of hierachical relationship principles of one human being to other. When you read Matthew 5 through 7 do you get the sense that Jesus advocated slavery?

Jesus described his mission as revamping the way people thought at the level of human core human relationship. It wasn't to merely proclaim "this thing is right, and this thing is wrong".



Well, it was updated. We are to be slaves to one another in terms of egalitarian approach to servanthood.

That was the who point of Jesus behaving like a slave when he took off his students sandals and began washing their feed. They were in shock, dismay, and embarrassment. And then he says ... you guys should be "that" to one another.

His point was not to restructure human society by saying X is wrong ... Y is right. His approach was to change our assumptions about how we are to relate to each other, in which case everything else, like slavery fades away.

Now, we can take a selective "verse proofing" approach and say "But verse X says this, therefore it's justified"...

But, ironically, that's what you end up doing when you choose to ignore something like Matthew 5 through 7, or foot washing scene, or even the Crusifiction one.



Certainly, they can, but it wouldn't be because Jesus never said that Slavery is immoral, but rather because people would need to ignore most of what Jesus said about how we are to treat each other.



It seems to me that short of me pointing you a text in the Bible that "Slavery is immoral" it would mean that somehow slavery is still considered moral?

I'm not exactly sure what you are expecting me to demonstrate specifically.

12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.

The context is fairly clear. You call me your teacher and your master, but I'll not be a slave for you. If I... who you think is the greatest among you, would do this. Then you should do this to one another.

Christian context was egalitarian approach to humanity... In fact, MLK would quote:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me to demonstrate beyond that.

Can you be more specific?

I have no doubt you are smart. I have no doubt of your intellect. You demonstrate it in your choice of words. I do, however, question your intellectual honesty...?

My answer is very simple... As others have stated, and I'm sure you've probably heard before....

'No longer own other humans as property.'
'No longer beat other humans virtually to death, while referencing them as property.'

People are dumb. People need clear instruction. If the word is objective law, make it clear.

I get the 'sense' that you are overtly navigating a very obvious topic.

I too can navigate 'justifications.' Heck, I remember hearing it when my mom was still trying to justify the existence of Santa Claus to me, when I started to doubt as a child.

The beauty of debate, is that their is always two or more sides to every story or topic.

I have my conclusions, you apparently have yours.

I don't know where else to go from here.

It is proving fruitless and time wasting...

Sigh... :/

 

[devolved]

I have no doubt you are smart. I have no doubt of your intellect. You demonstrate it in your choice of words. I do, however, question your intellectual honesty...?

My answer is very simple... As others have stated, and I'm sure you've probably heard before....

'No longer own other humans as property.'
'No longer beat other humans virtually to death, while referencing them as property.'

People are dumb. People need clear instruction. If the word is objective law, make it clear.

I get the 'sense' that you are overtly navigating a very obvious topic.

I too can navigate 'justifications.' Heck, I remember hearing it when my mom was still trying to justify the existence of Santa Claus to me, when I started to doubt as a child.

The beauty of debate, is that their is always two or more sides to every story or topic.

I have my conclusions, you apparently have yours.

I don't know where else to go from here.

It is proving fruitless and time wasting...

Sigh... :/

Again, I didn't quite understand what you were asking me beyond explaining why I think the Bible doesn't make a case for slavery.

I think I understand better now, given your previous post. I'm not trying to be intellectually dishonest. I didn't really understand what you were asking for.