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.
My claim, that you quoted, is that it's bad to own someone. Now you want to spin it back to slavery. This is why you're so bad at holding a conversation. A "slave for a day" is an indentured servant, not a slave. That's why there's a separate term.
What you quoted of me was just me following a claim to it's logical conclusion to a point neither I nor Sanoy would agree to. My only problem with the death penalty is the fallibility of any judicial proceedings, not the morality of killing an unrepentant murderer.
But you have yet to show why that's an issue, as none of your suggested moral systems makes slavery immoral either.
For one, you don't show that this supposed "forward thinking" is the morally correct way. Second, why would it have to align with what humans think? As already shown, the Bible predicts it WON'T align despite being God given due to the fall into sin.
The fallibility is somewhat addressed in Ex.23:7..do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty.
If you observe the mechanism of transportation... a car... are you observing the driver? The mechanism of thought is not the source of thought (or the experience of thought). That is an implied truth merely in the use of the term mechanism. It's not a matter of lack of technology. How can you see a thought Belk? And it fails the law of identity. A thought can be true, but a brain state is non boolean. We can see right now that it is irreducible. And there other reasons not to believe in a full reductionist account. How would we account for free will when matter is deterministic? We have the experience of free will, the intuition it exists and free will is a requirement for rationality and analytic thought. So we should reject a reductionist account and there is no need to "wait" for the conclusion we strangely want to be true. We have enough reason today, to accept a transcendent reality to our existence. And I know you are a former believer, but there was never any good reason to deny your soul for materialism. Denying it for materialism will rob you of everything you hold dear, even rationality itself.
I find it best to ignore his straw men and such and insist on staying on subject. I was hoping to see him defend his position today, but perhaps he’s not quite ready yet. There’s still hope.
The Bible and Tanakh of Judaism are such poorly edited books. Yet another of the many contradictions found in these two religious books.
Or, more simply, that not all laws applied to all people. Foreigners could be slave traders and sell their wares to Israelites, but Israelites couldn't be slave traders and could own foreign slaves. Note at the end of that Bible quote it explicitly calls for unfair treatment based on whether someone is an Israelite or not.
My narrow claim doesn't need to encompass the entirety of the broad topic of the thread, it only needs to be confined to the topic. All people that are owned are slaves, but not all people that are called "slaves" are owned, like you mention later in this post. You're trying to turn my narrow claim into a broader and harder to defend one.
You're actually right, for once. I truly enjoy our carefully implied mockery for each other. It's refreshing to not have to walk on eggshells like I do for most. But that comment crossed the line from being simply implied, so I retract it.
Well then what's the distinction between being property and not being property? Could it be that you own property? And if you actually own something, then you don't have to give it back?
That's fine that some will call those groups slaves, but it's irrelevant to my claim. "Slave" is what the 'S' in BDSM stands for, but it would be ridiculous to compare someone in that position with an actual slave in colonial America. That's why I chose the word "owned" instead of "slave" for my claim. If you have to give something back, then you don't own it. You're renting it or borrowing it. People can be treated like property and be treated like a slave without actually being owned by another person.
We can't make conclusions on anything that He doesn't specifically mention. Like my analogy to murder, it doesn't work to broaden what He said to other topics. We may have to disagree on this. If He says nothing should change, and then mentions only a few things that should change, I would say that we should assume anything He doesn't mention shouldn't change. This would make His initial statement only a little less than accurate. But if what is meant that a lot of other things He doesn't mention should change, then His earlier statement is false and meaningless.
I want to get back to this, but the crux of your argument rests on the interpretation of that one verse, so I want to focus on that first.
You can be compelled to do things for all sorts of reasons. I'll discuss my reasons for believing what I do only if you give me an assurance that it isn't an attempt to hand wave away my opinion and that you'll continue to discuss what the Bible says about slavery. Sorry to be so suspicious, but in my experience, that has always been the reason to question that when topics about the barbarism of the OT come into question.
All it takes to condone something is to say and do nothing. If it existed, and they never condemned it, then they condoned it. That is the definition of "condone". And since you've called Egyptian slavery "real slavery" I don't see why it would be difficult to call Israelite slavery "real slavery" unless they expressly forbid anything besides voluntary, indentured servitude.
Did Mosaic Law apply to everyone? For instance, if some foreigner murdered another foreigner in a foreign land, and then they wandered over to Israelite country, would the Israelites put them on trial for that murder? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that the Law was for Israelites, and foreigners were free to kidnap non-Israelites if they wished. Secondly, since the last part of that verse I quoted expressly prohibits treating Israelites as harshly as foreigners, I don't see why they would protect a foreign kidnapping victim.
I did actually, here:
Which ties back into the other passage I quoted that set up different treatment for Israelites and foreigners.
I got back to that other post earlier in this post. See above.
Those cities that they sacked, if they didn't open their gates all the men and boys of a certain age were slaughtered. That was their choice. Be slaughtered, or submit. That's slavery. Not all forced labor is wrong. I'm fine with prisoners convicted of a crime being forced to serve their community. There's no reason to think these cities ever bothered the Israelites. If they had, then presumably they would have ended up on the list of cities condemned to out and out genocide.
No, it only condemns the man-catcher and the people who buy caught men. There isn't a reason to believe it is expanded to all of the slave trade. I don't believe that law would apply to foreigners unless they caught an Israelite.
I like the ESV Bible because it is one of the few that attempts to translate as much as possible word for word. Perhaps "forced" is a bad translation there, but I'll need to see a scholarly source that states what it really meant instead. If the only other option was death for all the men and boys of a certain age, then "forced" absolutely fits the context, though.
You're right. I lumped "slave" in there because of the domination part. But that isn't what the 'S' is for, no. Domination is about the slave/master relationship, and they use those terms, so my point is still there, but I expressed it all wrong.
I guarantee that will never happen. I never report anyone for anything. I'd rather a post stay there forever than have a mod remove someone's mistake for them. What I can't guarantee though is that I won't ever cross that line again. It's a delicate one, and easy to trip over. But that's the fun!
Ditto.
I'm only defining "slavery" to the extent that owning a human is one part of it. People can call other things slavery, and define it more broadly, but that's it for me. Ownership, however, is lifelong unless the owner decides to give it up, or it is taken from him. If it's predetermined that he has to return it, then he doesn't own it. He's only borrowing it.
At best it's a tautology and doesn't answer the question.
That's why I didn't mention mistreatment in my story of Jim and Bob. I thought about it. But I thought of the same pet analogy and decided it was too broad. The important part is that you never have to let your pet be his own person or go free. You always own him.
Mostly that's a case of preferences given a short list of possibilities. If offered a decent paying job, enough to buy a house and raise a family, most folks wouldn't want to go back to their masters. But even those that do, would want to retain the right to leave at any time their master turns cruel, or leaves them in the care of his cruel children. I find it hard to believe that just because they wanted to go back to that life that they also wanted to forfeit their right to change their mind whenever they pleased. And if they can do that, then they aren't owned by another person.
