Is Slavery Moral?

[Moral Orel]

I actually addressed the distinction....rental involves paying for use. It need not be temporary...you could arguably rent a apartment till you die.

You pay to own things too. Even if someone volunteers to be a slave, you pay them with room and board. Payment isn't a distinction. Try again.

Lol and??? I would be destitute if I didn't have my current job...that doesn't mean my employers immorally took advantage of me.

It's not a situation where someone threatened or even coerced her. She made a choice.

I didn't say that at all. Read it again. I shouldn't always have to explain how to parse language about everything I write for you. Is there maybe someone who can help you read my posts? I really don't know how to state things simpler for you.

Cool story...how does that apply to my question?

You asked what's the difference between being property and being treated like property. I showed you the difference between being a horse, and being treated like a horse. It works for the difference between being X and being treated like X. Do I need to explain analogies to you too?

You said if owner intended to eventually let slave go....they weren't really property.

That's vaguely sort of close to being similar to what I said, missing some key components though. So no, I didn't say that, actually. If the slave chose how long they would be a slave, then they aren't owned. And if the owner planned to let the slave go free whenever the slave decided then the slave wasn't owned. Can you see why those specifics are important and make what I said very, very different from what you said that I said?

You do realize that many slaves were freed by their masters....right? Does that mean that the whole time they weren't actually property?

After being reminded of what I actually said, not what you decided I meant, does this question still seem valid?

But again, it's my claim. I told you what I mean by "owning", which I defined via my example of Jim and Bob by considering all the things I can do with, for example, a toaster. Instead of trying to redefine what I mean when I make my claim, do you want to disagree with my claim or agree with it? We can continue arguing semantics over what the word "own" means if you wish, but it has no bearing on my claim except to the extent I might need to choose a different word.

 

[Moral Orel]

You are going to have to tell me what city you are referring too, as the text in reference is a general proposition not referring to a specific city but vague references of distance, and I don't recall you ever mentioning a specific city. I know there were cities on the way, some let Israel pass some did not but I beleive this takes place after that. As far as the cities that resisted the men were killed. All that is left are orphans and their mothers, which is exactly what Israel takes in. It would be worse to leave them there to die of starvation. Neither of us knows how they are treated because such laws are not included, but we do know they are destitute if they remain.

I passed over this one, and I really wanted to address it. First, that passage refers to cities outside the Promised Land because of this:

Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.​

See that bolded part, these cities are not "here" and they are not the land that "God is giving you for an inheritance".

Also, you said that there is nothing written about how to treat the women survivors of these cities, but there is:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. Deuteronomy 21:10-14​

So it's nice and all to let her grieve a bit before they have sex with their female captives, and they don't get to enslave them forever, but it never mentions consent on the woman's part... All that matters is the soldier wants, and then maybe the soldier decides he doesn't want. Point is, that while you don't think this list of laws should be considered robust, it is robust indeed. It covers all sorts of specific circumstances. And while there are definitely other laws, it shouldn't be said that we can't get an accurate picture of how they viewed women and foreigners and slaves from the Bible alone.

Now later you said this:

I don't think there is anything morally wrong with tributaries in Israel. Israel was God's land to give, Israel did not take land apart from the promise. God gave the former rulers 400 years to complete their iniquity before He judged them partly through His going before Israel and partly through Israel. There was no actual command for genocide, war texts are non literal, what you recall is merely the fashion of ANE language. I can give you a ~10min scholarly primer on reading war texts if you want, it's really good.

There are two problems with this. If they didn't take land outside Israel, then these weren't tributaries, they would have taken the people back to Israel for forced labor. Second, the genocidal commands were about preventing the spread of foreign religions in Israel. You would need to kill more than just soldiers to accomplish that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You pay to own things too. Even if someone volunteers to be a slave, you pay them with room and board. Payment isn't a distinction. Try again.

True...but you aren't paying for ownership when renting....you're paying for useage. The owner remains the same. That's really the only distinction...because as I pointed out, there are things you can rent for the rest of your life.

I didn't say that at all. Read it again. I shouldn't always have to explain how to parse language about everything I write for you. Is there maybe someone who can help you read my posts? I really don't know how to state things simpler for you.

I read it correctly...I just tried to explain why you're wrong without directly referencing your false analogy. Here's what you said...

" If someone was going to cut me or stab me and gave me the choice, I'd choose being cut."

There's a couple of reasons why this is a completely false analogy. One reason is that it's her choice...no one is forcing her to choose between destitution or slavery. If someone is going to cut or stab you...but lets you choose which...that means one will happen to you even if you don't choose. Well no one is going to enslave her....she's a free woman, and while she is already destitute, there's no reason to believe she's completely unable to change that without becoming a slave. I'll fully acknowledge that former slaves didn't have a lot of options when it came to generating an income...but they still had options. There were those former slaves who managed to make a decent living (though they were certainly they were a minoriry)...so we know its at least possible she could've done the same. Therefore, its not as if destitution and slavery were the only options she had.

So between the facts that no one was forcing either destitution or slavery upon her....and the fact that she had more options than those two...your analogy falls apart along with any point you felt it made. It's also worth mentioning that the tone of the petition itself made it sound like she didn't believe the option of slavery as a negative one....quite the opposite. The petition paints the option of slavery as a positive one....though I certainly have no guarantee that those are her words exactly.

You asked what's the difference between being property and being treated like property. I showed you the difference between being a horse, and being treated like a horse. It works for the difference between being X and being treated like X.

Yeah...but as I explained before....property isn't an easy word to define outside of a strictly legal context...and since slavery is currently illegal, we have to basically imagine a definition for it.

Do I need to explain analogies to you too?

No...but it wouldn't hurt to explain why you're using one's that don't apply lol.

That's vaguely sort of close to being similar to what I said, missing some key components though. So no, I didn't say that, actually. If the slave chose how long they would be a slave, then they aren't owned.

Why? And moreover....why do you still think that matters? I've already provided an example of someone who was willfully choosing to be a slave....without any stipulations....for the rest of her life.

And if the owner planned to let the slave go free whenever the slave decided then the slave wasn't owned. Can you see why those specifics are important and make what I said very, very different from what you said that I said?

No....I can't imagine why you think they matter at all. Imagine if a slave one day told their master they'd like to be set free when the master dies, and the master agrees. Are they suddenly no longer property because they've agreed upon a date of freedom?

After being reminded of what I actually said, not what you decided I meant, does this question still seem valid?

I can't say it does.

But again, it's my claim. I told you what I mean by "owning", which I defined via my example of Jim and Bob by considering all the things I can do with, for example, a toaster. Instead of trying to redefine what I mean when I make my claim, do you want to disagree with my claim or agree with it?

I don't agree with your definition of owning....but again, I don't see how it matters anymore. I provided an example of a willing and consenting slave that fits your definition of property.

We can continue arguing semantics over what the word "own" means if you wish, but it has no bearing on my claim except to the extent I might need to choose a different word.

Again, I don't see how it matters now anyway since I've provided an example that would fit under your unique definition of "own". If you feel like it matters....explain why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Okay..sorry for changing your words but I asked you "How do you know other human minds exist? " So it seems you didn't answer my question at all. So how do you know that other human minds exist?

The same way we know that rocks, cars and the sun exists. We observe them to exist. And we share that observation with the other humans we meet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, coming back to this issue. I'll make it very simple for you too

We could make a list of rules for your kids:

1) Don't hit one another.
2) Don't spit at each other.
3) Don't pee on each other.
4) Don't yell at each other.

And then they come back and ask... is throwing rocks at each other ok? So, you ad it to the list and say. No, it's not ok. And then they come back and say, "Is it ok to throw a piece of wood then?", and you add that to the list and say "Don't throw hard objects at each other".

And the it goes on and on, until you basically say: "Don't do something to each other what you wouldn't want other person do to you". Or, "Love one another, and here's what a loving attitude is like... it's patient, it's kind, it's forgiving, etc".

So, concept is that principled approach to morality will transcend context.

What you are doing is very much like the kid in the above illustration... saying "But there's nothing here that says that owning and beating people is wrong. In fact, here it says that it's ok".

And then I keep showing you a transcendent principle of :

"Love one another, and here's what a loving attitude is like... it's patient, it's kind, it's forgiving, etc".
"Don't do something to each other what you wouldn't want other person do to you"

And what you seem to imply that such principles don't encapsulate such behavior as wrong and immoral. Why would you think so?

You seem to think just because someone could point to this verse, then it will automatically justify slavery, but it's absurd when it comes to a wide variety of transcendent principles that would clearly condemn and invalidate such behavior as wrong.

I think you'ld have a really good point, if it wasn't for the fact that your book that collects the "rules and principles" explicitly allows slavery.

In your analogy, the kids wouldn't have to come to you asking if it is okay to throw rocks and eachother, because your rulebook already explicitly states that it's okay to do so!!!!!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then why were the Israelites liberated from Egyptian slavery?

They weren't, actually.
And surprise surprise, in the book of the jews, they jews are proclaimed to be the "chosen" people who required special treatment and who had more inherent basic rights then others.

This is why the default term of enslavement of a jew was 7 years (with a loophole that I can only describe as blackmail, that could turn it into a lifetime) while non-jews were slaves for life.

Immoral relative to what?

Relative to human rights and basic human dignity.

Why should your opinion carry any weight in a world of natural where humans are big-brained apes and nothing more?

Why would the opinion of anonymous bronze age authors of religious texts' opinions carry more weight then the opinions of more sophisticated 21st century opinions?

How bout the Hittites. Is it immoral relative to the Hittite law code?

This thread is about slavery in the bible.

In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.[1] The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy in historical writing.[2]

Make no mistake, every single one of use completely expects that the cultural ideas of ancient barbaric societies to indeed reflect that barbarism. And we understand that those people simply didn't know any better at that time.

But christians claim that the bible is from god and that these are HIS rules and guidelines. I'ld think that an all powerful, omniscient and omnibenevolent God WOULD know better. Much better.

As I always like to say: If he can tell you not to eat shrimp, he can tell you not to treat human beings as personal private property.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. Premeditated Murder, for example is objective. The reason it is objective is because it is From the finger of God. It is an objective standard applies to all persons equally. Also Exod.23:2. Shall not follow the masses in doing evil..... Consensus does not determine right from wrong for humans, only God does.

If it is from men via consensus then it is not objective.

Then slavery is objectively moral.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is plenty of evidence fo the claim. What you do not have is any actual evidence the Exodus did not happen. Critics are entitled to their opinions, not their facts. Opinions are not evidence.

Exodus Didn't Happen
Evidence for the Exodus - RationalWiki

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why?

If someone wants to be a slave, I see nothing immoral about it.

Me neither.
But what if the person changes opinion and decides that (s)he no longer wishes to be a slave?

That's when it becomes troublesome.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Reminds me of time an atheist friend of mine asked why if God was real he didn't just reveal himself. I replied, "You mean like if He came to earth in human form, healed the lame and blind, raised the dead, died only to resurrect Himself, hung around for a bit, and then ascended back in heaven?" <crickets>

And then left us with nothing but anecdotes of that story, indisinguishable from the claims of alien abductees.

And if I were God and wanted to reveal myself to humans - I wouldn't disguise as a human.
And I would make sure that there is something more convincing left then just a text, written decades / centuries after the events of which today we only have copies of copies of translations of copies.

Being all powerful and all, I'ld rather opt for a bunch books made from indestructable materials that don't naturally occur, with text that is automagically presented in the language that the reader speaks. That would do it. Seems like that would have a lot more impact then yet another religious scripture that exists on the exact same shelve as all other mutually exclusive religious scriptures...

I'm just a puny human and in one minute, I was able to come up with better and more efficient ways of how a God could reveal his message in a convincing manner that survives time. Strange, isn't it?

To some people requesting "proof" none will ever suffice. (John 12:39-40)

Faith based anecdotes that can't be verified are the very opposite of "proof".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Me neither.
But what if the person changes opinion and decides that (s)he no longer wishes to be a slave?

That's when it becomes troublesome.

Even if they entered into slavery fully accepting that possibility?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Even if they entered into slavery fully accepting that possibility?

Yes.

here's something similar: suppose I agree to let you kill and eat me. In fact, let's even say it's my idea and my request. Just because.

Should you be allowed to do so?

 

[Sanoy]

Again, you are trying to go after me, verses the content ('is slavery moral'). I already told you. If you cannot accept it, o well. Why do you care for the reasons of my intention of previous faith, other? What does this have anything to do with the topic? What speaks volumes to me, is instead of acknowledging that the Bible endorses slavery, you appear to be (and pardon the assumption) providing an ad hoc, or alternative conclusion to retain your current position. This appear disingenuous, and delays the final outcome to the presented topic.



The Bible DOES state specifics. If you are not Jewish, you may be beaten just short of death, called property, inherited, kept for life, slavery family kept by the slave owner, etc.... So it does 'condone' it. If it did not state any of this, I would not state any of this...



You mean to tell me no English translation used hermeneutics? Because they continue to use the words 'slavery', 'beat', and 'property', when referring to non-Jewish slaves. So if no English translator is using differing words by now, then maybe you can forward them the same information you are now advising towards me.



And I know you are perfectly capable of reading as well. Every English version uses the words they chose. From your rational, its almost as if you are telling people, that they need to instead learn Greek or Aramaic and read the original manuscripts, otherwise, they will not receive proper instruction. That's funny.

I am going after the content, in fact I'm the only one of us doing so. I am surprised you are offended that I revealed the truth in regards to the source of this thread. Did you think people thought you were reading the Bible and came across this? They didn't, people know you, they have read what you have written and it comes off pretty clearly. The Bible doesn't endorse slavery in the modern sense. The final outcome of this thread was pages ago, it is just willful clinging now.

It states specifics within a broad section, that is the source of the ambiguity. This is a collection of law, not the book of law. No...it does not say that. And I know the verse you are manipulating to list that, so don't bother quoting them if all you are going to do is point at the English word.

Translators do use Hermenutics and history to translate, but sometimes they are stuck with a difficult choice. Do they go with the LLX, Qumran, Peshita, or the Masoretic, which we already saw makes a difference between the Masoretic and LLX as Greek is a much more descriptive language. Do they with a full contextual understanding or do they define the word as it is. In a controversial topic like this one if they go with the word they can merely hope the reader is diligent in the truth, if they go with the context then they are accused of white washing the Bible. Again I encourage you to learn a little bit about translation and ancient languages.

I know a little Greek and Hebrew, and a little grammar. You don't need to know either to study these texts. There are plenty of resources out there which is exactly how I have been making this case. I downloaded the LLX in Greek found the relevant words looked at their meaning, put the meaning in the sentence and viola it made sense. I also study ANE journals, OT Journals, and Pseudopigrpha Journals. But hey who needs that lets just read it in English and make specious polemics.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes.

here's something similar: suppose I agree to let you kill and eat me. In fact, let's even say it's my idea and my request. Just because.

Should you be allowed to do so?

Yes...of course, I'm assuming you're of sound mind when making this decision.

 

[Sanoy]

It's in the context. If they open the gates, they do labor. If they don't open the gates they die. How is that not "forced"? There isn't a third option.

It says nothing of it being voluntary. That law does not outlaw the slave trade. You keep repeating that, but it's false. It outlaws purchasing one specific type of slave based on how he was initially acquired. If it weren't for the Law explicitly stating you can buy slaves from foreigners, you might be able to wiggle the entire slave trade into that context, but since it does, you can't. You are adding things that aren't there.

That's false. Hebrew male slaves can choose to be slaves for life, Hebrew women can be slaves for life with no mention of them having a choice in the matter at all, and foreign slaves are explicitly allowed to be enslaved for life and inherited to the children of the slave owner.


Adultery was a law in the same sense that slavery was a law: they were both permitted by the law. I'm not saying Jesus should have told them to overthrow the government, but He could have said "You have heard that you can purchase slaves, but I say never own another person as property". It would have fit perfectly with the other things He condemns, followed the same format, and wouldn't have called for any government interference like you're implying must automatically follow from decrying owning people as property. There is nothing impeding Him from condemning it, He chose not to.


We can imagine that evolution could have turned out differently for us, and we can imagine that it will be different in a million years. But we can also imagine that God could have been malevolent instead of benevolent. He could have been "hate" instead of being "love". What we can imagine doesn't matter. We find ourselves in a situation where being nice is objectively more likely to result in happiness for ourselves and others. That's all that matters.

Yes they add it because it is in the context of how they are translating the other word. But as I have said we have these words in the LLX and they make much more sense as a tributary, and it makes more sense in context of a peace agreement.

Right it does not say voluntary or involuntary, so we don't know from the verse. However the surrounding content does lean against involuntary. I'm not adding, I am using contextual reason to interpret the content. You are concluding based on English.

You will have to give me the verses about Israeli men and women being slaves for life, it contradicts Leviticus 25:42. And contradiction does appear to happen between the books though I have not investigated each occurrence. Foreign slaves can voluntarily become slaves for life "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,"

By saying Jesus should have condemned every Roman law that is even partly immoral you are making Him an enemy of the state. This is an outrageous expectation.

I am glad that you are confirming that your moral grounding is free roaming. So there is no real way to condemn anything anyone did in the ANE in any real sense through your grounding. The word God however is not a floating place holder. God's nature is immutable. He is a maximally great being. Good things refer to a defined concept, bad things refer to the abstraction of the good.

Ok I understand what you are referring to now. These are the Tributary cities outside the promised land God is giving them. They still retain their identity but remain under Israelite rule. This is a weak indication that further adds to the view of Tributary.

What I said was we don't know how they are treated as POW's. I know about Deuteronomy 21:10. It is often used in Polemics but it is not as you imagine. There is some sense we can draw in the POW camps that the intent is to integrate the people back into society in the fact that they are still wearing their original cloths. It was common practice to rape the women during battle, and so women would dress seductively to entice the men where they can be distracted and killed. So the fact that they are still wearing these clothes is indicative that the intent is to put them back into society rather than remain in what ever conditions they remain in. Now as to the rest of it this is anti rape legislation. Moses is saying, 'no, we will not rape women'. They will be held captive, and if you wish to have one for your wife you may, but she must change out of her seductive cloths, shave her head (possibly her eyebrows as well) and remain ugly for 1 month (possibly 3) before they can consummate the marriage. That is to overcome the mans desire for her and make sure she would be a compatible wife. Once married if she hates him she may go free. If she loves him her first born receives the inheritance. Once again, the Camelot of the ANE. Now as to the forcing, the word is not rape, it is unique formulation of the word to bare out the starting condition of the marriage, IE she is a POW. It does not say whether or not she can refuse, but she is not in a position of choosing her ideal husband.

Tributaries get to keep their land, they just pay taxes and go to war and probably some other things. The Cherem was a judgement from God that was 400 years in the making, there is no command to chase after people. They are condemned from the land.

 

[Sanoy]

The same way we know that rocks, cars and the sun exists. We observe them to exist. And we share that observation with the other humans we meet.

No one has ever observed a thought except the one having it. If you could observe a thought you would not have to ask the person whose brainstate you are looking at what he is thinking about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean I'm aware of the topic, but it is not my paid profession. Using any form of hermeneutics, does not absolve the verses regarding 'slavery', without using hermeneutic gymnastics, from my estimation.

Ok. So (for some reason) you don't think that hermeneutics comes into play at any time when one slaps open the Bible and, while visually scanning the texts therein, comes across the word "slavery," or "slave." So, if hermeneutics doesn't come into play for the 'ordinary reader,' what conceptual dynamics do come into play? Anything I should be aware of that my graduate and undergraduate work didn't inform me of?

It's almost as if you think that only those persons who employ hermeneutical gymnastics (whatever those would actually be) undergo the activity of "interpreting" the texts, while somehow all other people who approach the texts in a more simplified manner do not thus interpret those same texts. They 'just' read them.

I mean, here's what it boils down to. If I'm going to bother to try to discuss this with you, but you actually harbor a position that is already sure of itself, one that by which you feel you're already "in the know," then it would probably be better for me to take the position of the student and you just baste me with the riches of your knowledge. Otherwise, we can try to discuss this as two intelligent people who have respective viewpoints and who might learn something from each other.

 

[Phil 1:21]

And then left us with nothing but anecdotes of that story, indisinguishable from the claims of alien abductees.

And if I were God and wanted to reveal myself to humans - I wouldn't disguise as a human.
And I would make sure that there is something more convincing left then just a text, written decades / centuries after the events of which today we only have copies of copies of translations of copies.

Being all powerful and all, I'ld rather opt for a bunch books made from indestructable materials that don't naturally occur, with text that is automagically presented in the language that the reader speaks. That would do it. Seems like that would have a lot more impact then yet another religious scripture that exists on the exact same shelve as all other mutually exclusive religious scriptures...

I'm just a puny human and in one minute, I was able to come up with better and more efficient ways of how a God could reveal his message in a convincing manner that survives time. Strange, isn't it?



Faith based anecdotes that can't be verified are the very opposite of "proof".

Well, when you become God and create your own universe you can do things your way. Until then...

 

[devolved]

I think you'ld have a really good point, if it wasn't for the fact that your book that collects the "rules and principles" explicitly allows slavery.

Certainly, it allows slavery, and it allows for stoning people with rocks... in context of that culture that was already doing those things.

The question is about whether it views these concepts as inherently good, or whether it requires the people of the day to set ideals that would lead to eradication of these practices.

You seem to be interested in narrowing your view to a stain that you claim ruins the entire painting, and it doesn't. The painting holds up just fine.

In your analogy, the kids wouldn't have to come to you asking if it is okay to throw rocks and eachother, because your rulebook already explicitly states that it's okay to do so!!!!!

It's not "mine" and it's not a "rulebook". The problem is that you don't really understand what and why it is, and you are commenting like you do. You are clearly not a historian, and you clearly not a sociologists. So, your subjective preference for today's cultural norms is noted, and I and most of the Christian world would agree with you.

But, respond to Bible like it's a series of Tweets. "Oh, look at this tweet right here..., the author must be a racist homophobe!".

If you resided in that culture, you wouldn't recognize these concepts as inherently immoral, because these would be your reality with a set of the present-day cultural norms.

The point of the Biblical narrative is progression out of these norms to a society that we live in today ... and even transcending out society for a better one.

But, why do we have these norms in our day and age? What is the basis for our norms?

In your worldview you need to cling to some vacuous concept of "well-being", and to insist that it's self-evident enough that every human on earth would just follow along. But why didn't these people 2000 years ago, if that concept is so self-evident? Our view of well-being is very much predicated by our cultural presets, and of itself it's not enough for a guiding principle, because of wide variety of subjective views for personal well-being.

That's why inner-city gangs form. They are concerned about their immediate well-being far more in a context of their immediate survival. So, they have no problems infringing on well-being of other people around them, and there goes your basis for morality, because it's only as strong as the environment that supports it.

And the environment that supports it today is inherently religious. And just because you wake up today and decide that there's a record in the bible about people 3500 years ago practicing slavery is BAD ... doesn't mean that you personally would behave any better in that culture.

Hence, I'm not really sure what you are critical of here? You seem to have an inherent dislike for cultural norms of people 3500 years ago? Great! I share your dislike.

But, you seem to ignore that you didn't just wake up and magically figured out the cultural presets of today to have something to compare to. These were handed down to you by previous culture, and a culture before it, and a culture before it... all with successive improvements that were driven by ideals of religious morality.

Hence, you pointing to infancy of that morality 3500 years ago would be like pointing to an infant child today and criticizing it for not being able to walk. It's rather ignorant and misguided.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes...of course, I'm assuming you're of sound mind when making this decision.

I think that's very disturbing.