The Euthyphro Has Finally Been Destroyed. Now What?

[Tinker Grey]

Dmitri (Mitya) quotes it to Alyosha while recalling an earlier conversation with Ratikin.

Ah, well. When you search for it, Dostoevsky Did Say It: A Response to David E. Cortesi you find that they got the idea from Ivan.

This link says it's from the Grand Inquisitor chapter: Dostoevsky Did Say It: A Response to David E. Cortesi which, of course, is the conversation between Ivan and Alyosha

ETA:
It would appear that Dmitri said it first (in the book) but was paraphrasing Ivan when he said it, which is what they are debating in the snippet below.

The Grand Inquisitor by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

"'Everything is lawful,' you mean? Everything is lawful, is that it?"
Ivan scowled, and all at once turned strangely pale.
"Ah, you've caught up yesterday's phrase, which so offended Muisov- and which Dmitri pounced upon so naively and paraphrased!" he smiled queerly. "Yes, if you like, 'everything is lawful' since the word has been said, I won't deny it. And Mitya's version isn't bad."

 

[Carbon]

While Ivan's version implies a theological meaning, it is Dmitri's formulation that clearly presents the full conditional operator. "Without God and the future life? It means everything is permitted now, one can do anything?" Of course Dostoevsky being Dostoevsky, everything is dripping in irony so you can't really tell if Dmitri means it or not.

I don't really take position there. My point was just to say the inversion of Dmitri's quip is closer to the truth than the original is. With God, everything is permitted.

 

[Tinker Grey]

While Ivan's version implies a theological meaning, it is Dmitri's formulation that clearly presents the full conditional operator. "Without God and the future life? It means everything is permitted now, one can do anything?" Of course Dostoevsky being Dostoevsky, everything is dripping in irony so you can't really tell if Dmitri means it or not.

I don't really take position there. My point was just to say the inversion of Dmitri's quip is closer to the truth than the original is. With God, everything is permitted.

I was just being pedantic. And, arguably wrong. But it's been 30+ years since I read it.

 

[Carbon]

I was just being pedantic. And, arguably wrong. But it's been 30+ years since I read it.

I share the blame. Referencing Dmitri instead of Ivan is like the perfect Russian literature version of click-bait.

 

[BigDaddy4]

1. Is it (moral or immoral) to instruct slave owners that it is okay to keep your slave for life, and beat them for life?

Where do you get the underlined from?

 

[Paulomycin]

My argument taken from another forum. . .

The initial dilemma:

"Does God say that things are moral because they are by nature moral, or do they become moral because God declares them to be?"

Christian Response: This is a false dilemma. The 3rd option is, "because God's nature."

This means that God does not declare something to be good (ignoring his own nature) or say that something is good by nature (recognizing a standard outside of himself). Both of these situations ignore the biblical option that good is a revelation of God’s nature. In other words, God is the standard of what is good. He is good by nature, and he reveals his nature to us. Therefore, for the Christian, there is no dilemma since neither position in Euthyphro’s dilemma represents Christian theology.

Atheist Response: Aha! This is nothing more than the exact same dilemma as before, only in different terms!

1.) Does God have control over His own nature?

2.) Or, does God not have control over His own nature?

If #1, God's nature is based on His own arbitrary decision.

If #2, then something other than God dictates what His nature should be.

Atheist conclusion: Therefore, the believer is (apparently) still impaled on the horns of the dilemma.

Christian Response: Not so fast. The atheist response/conclusion constitutes its own form of question-begging.

1.) Does [the nature of] God have control over His own nature?

2.) Or, does [the nature of] God not have control over His own nature?

If #1, then God's nature is based on His own nature, which is not arbitrary.

"Arbitrary" is defined as, "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

"God's nature is based on His own nature," would instead be a tautological truth (A = A), which is the very foundation of the system of deductive reason itself.

If #2, something other than [the nature of] God dictates what His nature should be. <-- This does not follow, given that "God" is not merely an arbitrary name, but refers to His nature.

Conclusion: God's is never obligated to violate His own nature in order to prove it. A single reductive part of the whole cannot prove the whole. Regression cannot prove progression. [endquote]

Bottom line: God always behaves according to His nature.

 

[cvanwey]

Where do you get the underlined from?

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

And then:

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

If the slaves are not Israelites, they are kept for life. However, even the Israelites can be tricked into lifetime slavery (i.e.)

"4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."

In conclusion, all in which are under the rules of 'slavery' can be beaten, as long as they do not die within a couple of days; for life. This means if they die from complications, (i.e.) from deep lacerations, internal bleeding, or any other, (after the 48 hour mark), I guess they are free and clear from punishment.

Thus:

Is it (moral or immoral) to instruct slave owners that it is okay to keep your slave for life, and beat them for life?

 

[Paulomycin]

1. Why is it eternally okay and fine to own other humans as property; for which one person can beat another, just short of death, for life?

Because antebellum slavery was an abuse of scripture that cherrypicked verses in order to justify the practice. The Old South was abusing scripture the whole time, just as atheists do to craft their accusations (they follow almost the same antebellum interpretation).

Thus, it was necessary to abolish antebellum slavery altogether; even to fight a Civil War over it. If the entire scripture were truly followed, all the way through to the NT, then the slave and master would voluntarily submit to one another as each others' slave in mutual loving submission (Ephesians 6:9). <-- Slavery cannot exist without threat(s).

But just for the sake of argument, let's take the NT out of the picture (as the atheist compartmentalizes it). Antebellum slavery in the Old South couldn't even win on Old Testament alone!

For example, you can't assume that anyone automatically knows in the heat of the moment exactly how many times you can beat someone "just short of death." And you can't realistically imagine the target will just stand there and not try to instinctively duck, or put their hands up (what kind-of cartoon scenario is being proposed here?).

Often, one well-placed punch to the back of the head can result in instant death. There were no MRIs in ancient Israel, and so that Mosaic law you're obliquely referring to was a deterrent; not a license.

If the antebellum South followed just the Old Testament, then slaves would be freed every 7 years under Mosaic manumission.

"B-but that only applied to Jewish slaves!"

Yes, but foreigners could convert to Judaism. Even while a slave. This kept a check on paganism. But one of the benefits of conversion is that you were free in 7 years.

I can expand on this further with direct scripture citations included, if necessary.

2. Why is it eternally never okay for women to have authority over men, in specific situations?

Because Complementarianism is easier on the woman, that's why. The man has no excuse to abdicate personal responsibility. Authority comes from providing security, or being willing to lay down one's entire life for both the uterus, the fruit of that uterus, as well as the one who is nurturing that uterus. Otherwise, you're burdening the woman with all the work. The man's role is that of servant leadership.

Again, now that the Euthyphro is essentially off the table, maybe the apologists can merely explain why THE Standard for goodness deems such categories eternally 'good', or at least eternally 'perfectly acceptable'?

Because God behaves according to His nature (of Holiness). Control-freaks and idolaters hate this, because they demand a god they can control.

 

[Paulomycin]

If the slaves are not Israelites, they are kept for life. However, even the Israelites can be tricked into lifetime slavery (i.e.)

How is this a deception?

Rather, it is more of a deterrent not to marry and have children until one's debt of slavery is worked off within the space of 7 years.

 

[cvanwey]

How is this a deception?

Rather, it is more of a deterrent not to marry and have children until one's debt of slavery is worked off within the space of 7 years.

LOL! The Verse states if his master gives him a wife Please try again.

can you please actually answer the question now (i.e.)?

Is it (moral or immoral) to instruct slave owners that it is okay to keep your slave for life, and beat them for life?

 

[Paulomycin]

LOL! The Verse states if his master gives him a wife Please try again.

"Gives" does not imply "forced."

Is it (moral or immoral) to instruct slave owners that it is okay to keep your slave for life, and beat them for life?

You're currently ignoring the answers I gave. I'll wait for you to catch up. If you continue to ignore them I will have to quoteblock myself, which makes things look really awkward.

 

[cvanwey]

I had not seen this response yet. Okay, let's get nutz...

Because antebellum slavery was an abuse of scripture that cherrypicked verses in order to justify the practice. The Old South was abusing scripture the whole time, just as atheists do to craft their accusations (they follow almost the same antebellum interpretation).

Thus, it was necessary to abolish antebellum slavery altogether; even to fight a Civil War over it.

Not sure why you are bringing up [trans Atlantic] slavery specifically? The Bible is perfectly fine with many forms of slavery.

Many were born into slavery. Many slaves were traded from master to master. Other slaves were inherited from family. If they were born into slavery (from their parents), traded, and/or inherited (passed down), then they may be legally purchased "from the nations around you", fair and square --- (ala) Leviticus 25:44-46

If the entire scripture were truly followed, all the way through to the NT, then the slave and master would voluntarily submit to one another as each others' slave in mutual loving submission (Ephesians 6:9). <-- Slavery cannot exist without threat(s).

The Bible instructs that slaves are to be taught properly... Hence, the slaves are not to talk back to their masters.

"9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive."

Furthermore, slaves are told not to run, and do all their slave work as hard as they can, because God is always watching.

"2 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving."

And please remember slaves, do everything your master asks. Or, you will receive punishment, as already sanctioned in the Bible. Hence, the beatings, as already mentioned in the OT, and are not considered against God's law.

But just for the sake of argument, let's take the NT out of the picture (as the atheist compartmentalizes it). Antebellum slavery in the Old South couldn't even win on Old Testament alone!

For example, you can't assume that anyone automatically knows in the heat of the moment exactly how many times you can beat someone "just short of death." And you can't realistically imagine the target will just stand there and not try to instinctively duck, or put their hands up (what kind-of cartoon scenario is being proposed here?).

Often, one well-placed punch to the back of the head can result in instant death. There were no MRIs in ancient Israel, and so that Mosaic law you're obliquely referring to was a deterrent; not a license.

You are funny The Bible does not dictate how often you can/cannot beat your slaves. Who was keeping tract of how long they lived after their beatings, if they later died?

And besides all this, if the master merely whips a slave in the back 312 times, and the slave dies from infection 4 days later, is this moral? God seems to think so. The slave died on day 4.

I see little/no deterrent here. You follow the law, as instructed, and the master can beat as often as they deem fit, without killing them too fast, for life.

If the antebellum South followed just the Old Testament, then slaves would be freed every 7 years under Mosaic manumission.

"B-but that only applied to Jewish slaves!"

Yes, but foreigners could convert to Judaism. Even while a slave. This kept a check on paganism. But one of the benefits of conversion is that you were free in 7 years.

I can expand on this further with direct scripture citations included, if necessary.

The question remains... Why are all (non-Jewish and born-into slaves) kept, treated as property, and beaten for life?

Because Complementarianism is easier on the woman, that's why. The man has no excuse to abdicate personal responsibility. Authority comes from providing security, or being willing to lay down one's entire life for both the uterus, the fruit of that uterus, as well as the one who is nurturing that uterus. Otherwise, you're burdening the woman with all the work. The man's role is that of servant leadership.

The Bible gives us a different reason(s) than yours:

"13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Do you find the above Biblical reasons okay too?

Because God behaves according to His nature (of Holiness). Control-freaks and idolaters hate this, because they demand a god they can control.

So God's nature is to allow for lifetime slavery, and for men to be above women. Got it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Not sure why you are bringing up [trans Atlantic] slavery specifically? The Bible is perfectly fine with many forms of slavery.

It's usually interpreted from a Westernized pre-Civil War mindset. Nowhere is it ever written that "The Bible is perfectly fine with [other foreign] forms of slavery," except when exercising judgment on God's own people.

And please remember slaves, do everything your master asks. Or, you will receive punishment, as already sanctioned in the Bible. Hence, the beatings, as already mentioned in the OT, and are not considered against God's law.

The the word of the slave's master never supercedes, nor overrules, the Word of the Prince of Peace.

The Bible does not dictate how often you can/cannot beat your slaves. Who was keeping tract of how long they lived after their beatings, if they later died?

Slavery was public and slaves were individually part of the public social structure. They would still be legally subject to damages.

Exodus 21:27

And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.

Exodus 21:20

“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.

^ NOTE: This last one is a deterrent. There were no MRIs back then. No way to diagnose traumatic injury. Thus, you cannot interpret this verse as license to abuse slaves as much as you want "as long as they don't die." People have died from just one punch to the back of the brainstem.

Thus, a deterrent to abuse instead. <-- NOT LICENSE.

"But what if a slave wanted to run away?"

Deuteronomy 23:15

“You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you."

Deuteronomy 5:15

And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

I see little/no deterrent here. You follow the law, as instructed, and the master can beat as often as they deem fit, without killing them too fast, for life.

Because you're eisegetically reading it as license, and not seriously considering the penalties for abusing slaves. Also, if you were in the market for a slave, you would also seriously need to consider the Jewish calendar for whether or not you'd have to turn around and free them again. That would effect a lot of things, including the cost of the actual slave.

The law never treated it as an incentive, but as a responsibility. There was one law for the stranger as well as the countryman. No "3/5ths rule." No double-standards. -Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:16, Numbers 15:29.

The question remains... Why are all (non-Jewish and born-into slaves) kept, treated as property, and beaten for life?

Because you're deliberately assuming "for life" without any legal provisions or loopholes. IOW, you're forcing the argument only from the verses you chose to cherrypick.

- Running away from one's master was allowed.

- The 7 year manumission was mandatory.

- The master was held responsible for inflicting physical injury (it was not a license to abuse).

- One law for the stranger as well as the countryman. Unless one is thick as a brick, this means that slaves were given the same rights as freemen.

The Bible gives us a different reason(s) than yours:

"13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Do you find the above Biblical reasons okay too?

It means that Adam sinned by abdicating his responsibility. But yeah, I pointed that out first. You're also (deliberately) ignoring Ephesians 5 & 6. Submission is meant to be mutual (a.) and voluntary (b.). One cannot force an apostolic order.

So God's nature is to allow for lifetime slavery, and for men to be above women. Got it.

Only when you cherrypick the Bible like an antebellum Southern plantation owner.

 

[cvanwey]

"Gives" does not imply "forced."

In your previous response, you stated:

"Rather, it is more of a deterrent not to marry and have children until one's debt of slavery is worked off within the space of 7 years."

So sure, I guess the slave is not "forced" to accept the woman. Maybe the Verses were written by slave masters whom wanted to increase slave volume. It's likely many slaves accepted this offer of a companion. And when they did, and had offspring to boot, the slave master was then lawfully allowed to keep all new fresh slaves; for which they could freely sell in the open market.

Why else would the Bible tell it's readers that the master was to keep the slave's offspring? Why else would the slave master want to keep someone else's offspring?

 

[Paulomycin]

Maybe the Verses were written by slave masters whom wanted to increase slave volume.

That, or maybe you're soaking in motive fallacy.

It's likely many slaves accepted this offer of a companion.

And how would they provide for them?

And when they did, and had offspring to boot, the slave master was then lawfully allowed to keep all new fresh slaves; for which they could freely sell in the open market.

Only if you ignored the parts of the Mosaic law that I quoted, that you're currently ignoring.

Why else would the Bible tell it's readers that the master was to keep the slave's offspring? Why else would the slave master want to keep someone else's offspring?

As a contingency. To protect the rights of the wife & kids. Life happens, man. Why do you have to force it as a license? Why do you need to force a motive fallacy?

 

[cvanwey]

It's usually interpreted from a Westernized pre-Civil War mindset. Nowhere is it ever written that "The Bible is perfectly fine with [other foreign] forms of slavery," except when exercising judgment on God's own people.

I already addressed this... The Bible tells it's readers that slave masters can buy slaves from the nations around them. I'd imagine that many slaves were born into slavery, were traded between slave masters, and/or were inherited after their master's father died. In all such cases, these slaves were then open to free global enterprise, (under Biblical law).

The the word of the slave's master never supercedes, nor overrules, the Word of the Prince of Peace.

Let's cut to the chase. You started in by asking me where I got the notion that slaves can be kept and beaten for life. I answered. Is God ever okay with owning humans as property for life, and beating them for life? It's a simple (yes or no) question.

If "yes", then conversation over. For which I would then ask if you too agree with God's moral nature.

If "no", nothing in your response has yet demonstrated that He is not okay with such practices?

Slavery was public and slaves were individually part of the public social structure. They would still be legally subject to damages.

Haha... Please see and answer above...

And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.

Talk about 'deterrents' and/or "regulating". If you knock out their teeth, or blow out an eye, they get to go free. Wee!

Maybe that's why slave masters would always beat their slaves on the back side.

“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.

^ NOTE: This last one is a deterrent. There were no MRIs back then. No way to diagnose traumatic injury. Thus, you cannot interpret this verse as license to abuse slaves as much as you want "as long as they don't die." People have died from just one punch to the back of the brainstem.

Thus, a deterrent to abuse instead. <-- NOT LICENSE.

"But what if a slave wanted to run away?"

Deuteronomy 23:15

“You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you."

Deuteronomy 5:15

And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

Hahaha....

I'll await your yes/no answer above.

Because you're eisegetically reading it as license, and not seriously considering the penalties for abusing slaves. Also, if you were in the market for a slave, you would also seriously need to consider the Jewish calendar for whether or not you'd have to turn around and free them again. That would effect a lot of things, including the cost of the actual slave.

The law never treated it as an incentive, but as a responsibility. There was one law for the stranger as well as the countryman. No "3/5ths rule." No double-standards. -Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:16, Numbers 15:29.

Unless you are deemed 'property', like a 'slave' For which, you now adhere to differing rules. Which is to keep your head down, do everything your master says, and if you do not, your master can beat you - (as we've established in the NT as well). Which you have apparently ignored.

Because you're deliberately assuming "for life" without any legal provisions or loopholes. IOW, you're forcing the argument only from the verses you chose to cherrypick.

That's funny, I thought that's what you are doing. Except, I have yet to see you refute my initial statement... (i.e.) God sanctions/allows the lifetime beating of slaves. Can you do that? If not, then I'm not really "cherry picking", am I?

The Bible gives us a different reason(s) than yours:

It means that Adam sinned by abdicating his responsibility. But yeah, I pointed that out first. You're also (deliberately) ignoring Ephesians 5 & 6. Submission is meant to be mutual (a.) and voluntary (b.). One cannot force an apostolic order.

I'll ask you again. Can a woman be the head pastor, head minister, head priest, header leader? I would assume the answer is no. It is you whom are deliberately making this harder than it really is... Submission is not mutual if the woman is oppressed from possible true leadership. Right?

Only when you cherrypick the Bible like an antebellum Southern plantation owner.

If I'm cherry picking, then I guess I'll await your yes/no answer above

 

[cvanwey]

That, or maybe you're soaking in motive fallacy.

Well then, let's "spitball" all the plausible reasons:

Again, God tells His readers that if the slave were to spawn children, while in slavery, the slave master is to keep the child/children.

You start

And how would they provide for them?

I'd imagine the same way as if you were keeping animals, for which you were breeding for sale. You would care for them until you can sell them for profit. Or maybe decide to keep them for yourself. It's your call, as a slave owner.

Only if you ignored the parts of the Mosaic law that I quoted, that you're currently ignoring.

Speaking of ignoring.... Exodus 21:4-6, Leviticus 25:44-46.

Please remember, slaves are also considered property.

As a contingency. To protect the rights of the wife & kids. Life happens, man. Why do you have to force it as a license? Why do you need to force a motive fallacy?

Um, then the Bible would clarify. It only states that the kids are to stay with the slave master. What if the slave master is no better, or worse, than the slave?

You have to apply more assumptions to go with your rationale, verses mine.

 

[Paulomycin]

I already addressed this... The Bible tells it's readers that slave masters can buy slaves from the nations around them.

Sure you can buy them, but it doesn't mean God condones how the previous master treated them. You're running "guilt-by-association" in foreign law.

In all such cases, these slaves were then open to free global enterprise, (under Biblical law).

The Mosaic law is neither relativism nor globalism.

Let's cut to the chase. You started in by asking me where I got the notion that slaves can be kept and beaten for life. I answered.

But you were wrong about the "for life" part. It's only "for life," if you refuse to convert to Judaism.

Is God ever okay with owning humans as property for life, and beating them for life? It's a simple (yes or no) question.

It's also a loaded question fallacy. Which, of course, isn't my fault.

If "yes", then conversation over. For which I would then ask if you too agree with God's moral nature.

If "no", nothing in your response has yet demonstrated that He is not okay with such practices?

Also false dilemma to boot. A viable 3rd option is you erroneously assumed "for life" regardless of other legal circumstances, like celebrating the Passover. Passover was open to new converts.

Talk about 'deterrents' and/or "regulating". If you knock out their teeth, or blow out an eye, they get to go free. Wee!

Yep. So you gotta treat 'em right. The Bible is clearly saying that best practice = velvet gloves.

OR, you can opt-out of buying slaves and do the work yourself. It's less trouble.

I think you need to step back and ask yourself, "What would it look like if Jews ran things?" This would be a great example of that. Slavery is allowed, but with so many provisions and contingencies, that it's more trouble than it's worth. Very clever.

Maybe that's why slave masters would always beat their slaves on the back side.

Exodus 21:24-28 <-- "One law (sing it with me) One law. . ." Exodus 12:49

Unless you are deemed 'property', like a 'slave' For which, you now adhere to differing rules.

No "differing rules," because "ONE LAW" and you failed to read it. You're just quote-mining it to keep your confirmation bias in place. Please, impotently repeat yourself some more.

Which is to keep your head down, do everything your master says, and if you do not, your master can beat you - (as we've established in the NT as well). Which you have apparently ignored.

Because you're ignoring the NT commands to masters. Not my fault.

That's funny, I thought that's what you are doing. Except, I have yet to see you refute my initial statement... (i.e.) God sanctions/allows the lifetime beating of slaves. Can you do that? If not, then I'm not really

"cherry picking", am I?

You are, because it's not read like your sweeping generalization wants it to read (see above).

I'll ask you again. Can a woman be the head pastor, head minister, head priest, header leader? I would assume the answer is no. It is you whom are deliberately making this harder than it really is... Submission is not mutual if the woman is oppressed from possible true leadership. Right?

You're oppressing the woman by putting too much on her plate. Make her do all the work and time-management for a church, kids, profession, etc. Nobody can do all that. We defer to the uterus and make space for it. You hate the uterus, I get it.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'd imagine the same way as if you were keeping animals, for which you were breeding for sale. You would care for them until you can sell them for profit. Or maybe decide to keep them for yourself. It's your call, as a slave owner.

Who's providing for the children? Oh right, the master. Not the slave. Otherwise, they would starve to death.

Speaking of ignoring.... Exodus 21:4-6,

Slave must necessarily give consent to marry in verse 4. By verse 5, the slave has to consent a second time to stay. Otherwise, the wife and children are provided the only welfare they can get from the master. That sucks, but at least they're provided for. You can't imagine this as some sort-of "trap," because the law is given up-front from the very beginning and in-public.

Leviticus 25:44-46.

Please remember, slaves are also considered property.

You didn't read the entire verse to the end, lol. A slave can still become "brethren" on conversion.

Exodus 21:2

If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing.

Those seven years correspond to what is known as the law of the sabbath. There are sabbath days and sabbath years.

You may protest, "But that was just Jews! Not foreign born slaves!"

Exodus 12:48

And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.

^ This, and other verses like it, are part of the process of converting to Judaism. Foreign-born proselytes can become Jews and are subject to the same benefits.

Leviticus 24:22

You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God.’

No exceptions. No racial excuses, like the Casor suit in 1654 that subverted indentured servitude in the United States. They're FULL Jews.

"What about the foreign born slave who didn't want to become a Jew?"

He or she stayed a slave. This then became both a deterrent and a cap on the spread of paganism. Word would eventually get around that you wouldn't want to sell yourself into slavery to a Jew unless you wanted to convert.

"What about fair treatment?"

Again, one law for the stranger and the countryman. No double-standards.

Um, then the Bible would clarify.

It did. You're just ignoring my citations and pretending it didn't.

It only states that the kids are to stay with the slave master. What if the slave master is no better, or worse, than the slave?

Then the law is evidently broken. Neglect is also harm.

You have to apply more assumptions to go with your rationale, verses mine.

No, I'm just citing from the actual text and you're ignoring it. I can only assume you're reading my citations.

 

[cvanwey]

Sure you can buy them, but it doesn't mean God condones how the previous master treated them. You're running "guilt-by-association" in foreign law.

You can buy them, apparently because God tells you that you can. You can beat them for life, apparently because God tells you that you can. You can buy slaves from the nations around you, apparently because God tells you that you can.

The Mosaic law is neither relativism nor globalism.

If I'm told I can by slaves from the nations around me, then that's a global slave trade.

But you were wrong about the "for life" part. It's only "for life," if you refuse to convert to Judaism.

Great, so now you have conceded my point entirely. God does tell His readers that you can own people as property, and beat humans, for life. If they do not convert, or are not an Israelite, they could be hosed. So basically, possible coercion, and/or your race, might save you from lifetime beatings. Kool.

It's also a loaded question fallacy. Which, of course, isn't my fault.

You have yet to refute that God sanctions the owning of humans as property for life, and the beating for life. Nothing you have provided has told me I am wrong. Hence, I guess I'll take your continuous dancing, all around this basic question, as a complete concession. Thanx

Also false dilemma to boot. A viable 3rd option is you erroneously assumed "for life" regardless of other legal circumstances, like celebrating the Passover. Passover was open to new converts.

You again tried to wiggle out of this basic {yes or no} question. But it's okay. You already answered sufficiently. (Paraphrased) -- "God tells slave owners how they may handle their slaves if they do not convert, or are not Israelites." Thanks again.

Yep. So you gotta treat 'em right. The Bible is clearly saying that best practice = velvet gloves.

OR, you can opt-out of buying slaves and do the work yourself. It's less trouble.

I think you need to step back and ask yourself, "What would it look like if Jews ran things?" This would be a great example of that. Slavery is allowed, but with so many provisions and contingencies, that it's more trouble than it's worth. Very clever.

I'm going to regurgitate a prior response... Another one you've ignored...

If you whip your slave from the back 312 times, and he dies on day 4, from infection, you are golden God is perfectly fine with this, because He says so in (Exodus 21:21). It is apparently not immoral, as God instructed as such.


I'm starting to wonder if you really believe all of what you are saying above and below, or maybe pulling my leg, or maybe you are doing exactly what you are accusing atheists of doing (i.e.) conformation bias?

I haven't decided yet?