The Euthyphro Has Finally Been Destroyed. Now What?

[Paulomycin]

You can buy them, apparently because God tells you that you can.

You can, but there's a 7 year limit if they convert (and there is an incentive to convert).

You can, but you can't mistreat them, because that "one law" thing you're frantically ignoring.

You can beat them for life, apparently because God tells you that you can.

But not really, because of that, "eye for eye; tooth for tooth," thing.

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

Better to buy a woman who's about to sacrifice her firstborn to Molech.
Better to buy a man out of the zero protections that foreign slavery provides, compared to Mosaic slavery.

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

But not global slave policy. Give me one tradition in the ANE that allows freedom from slavery if you convert to the national religion. lol. Forget it, you can't.

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.

That, or you're deliberately misrepresenting my posts and straight-up goading me into calling you a liar.

If they do not convert, or are not an Israelite, they could be hosed.

It's a cap on paganism. Great incentive.

Imagine if they bothered to apply that in the antebellum South. Slavery would be little more than working off a debt. Like washing dishes in a restaurant for a really-really big meal.

You have yet to refute that God sanctions the owning of humans as property for life, and the beating for life.

Because it puts the human in power. It gives them options. I had assumed you weren't that dense.

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

Okay, if you insist on being dishonest.

You again tried to wiggle out of this basic {yes or no} question. But it's okay.

Because I'm not obligated to answer a false dilemma fallacy. Sorry.

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.

Problem???

If you whip your slave from the back 312 times,

In Roman times, the limit was considered closer to 35, but don't let facts get in the way of your agenda, or anything.

and he dies on day 4, from infection, you are golden

^ You never explained how, as a slave-master, one could realistically plan for a slave to die from infection on the exact day; exactly as planned. Because you can't.

Because it's a deterrent. Not a license.

 

[Paulomycin]

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 really believe everything I'm saying. You were just making a mountain out of a molehill.

We haven't even gotten to the best part yet.

 

[cvanwey]

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

A slave cannot provide for anyone while they are enslaved. But the Bible says the freed slave is not to go free empty handed. So when the slave is set free, why can he NOT have his child/children then?

I'm still waiting? Let me pose the question again:

God tells His readers the children are to stay with the master. That's it. Why would that be?

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.

"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."

Nowhere does the Verse require the slave's consent. But let's steelman your argument, in Verse 4 anyways, and assume he does...

If the slave is given compensation, upon being freed, he can then provide for his new family. However, the Bible does not present this as a possible option.

However, the slave likely is not going to leave his wife and kids. He would feel like a tool. So his only option is to stay, for life.

In a nutshell, this is what you have revealed in our discussion.

-- God tells His readers what slave owners can legally do with slaves who refuse to convert or are not Israelites. They can be kept for life, treated as property for life, listen and not talk back, do everything they are told, and do not run -- (all because God is watching).

-- Israelites can also have their hand forces to stay for life.

-- If you are the off-spring of slave love, you are the property of your slave master (period). He can then sell such a deemed slave at will.

Thank you for your time.

 

[cvanwey]

You can, but there's a 7 year limit if they convert (and there is an incentive to convert).

You can, but you can't mistreat them, because that "one law" thing you're frantically ignoring.



But not really, because of that, "eye for eye; tooth for tooth," thing.



Better to buy a woman who's about to sacrifice her firstborn to Molech.
Better to buy a man out of the zero protections that foreign slavery provides, compared to Mosaic slavery.



But not global slave policy. Give me one tradition in the ANE that allows freedom from slavery if you convert to the national religion. lol. Forget it, you can't.



That, or you're deliberately misrepresenting my posts and straight-up goading me into calling you a liar.



It's a cap on paganism. Great incentive.

Imagine if they bothered to apply that in the antebellum South. Slavery would be little more than working off a debt. Like washing dishes in a restaurant for a really-really big meal.



Because it puts the human in power. It gives them options. I had assumed you weren't that dense.



Okay, if you insist on being dishonest.



Because I'm not obligated to answer a false dilemma fallacy. Sorry.



Problem???



In Roman times, the limit was considered closer to 35, but don't let facts get in the way of your agenda, or anything.



^ You never explained how, as a slave-master, one could realistically plan for a slave to die from infection on the exact day; exactly as planned. Because you can't.

Because it's a deterrent. Not a license.

The eye for an eye thingy, you keep wanting to peddle, does not apply to "slaves". Otherwise, you would not be able to read a special considerations Verse ---- (Exodus 21:21). Slaves do not have the same rights as the free. The slave master is free. The slave is not. If the slave master was to beat another slave master, yes, such a law (eye for an eye) would apply

You keep trying to rationalize the buying of slaves. The Bible tells us that all slave off-spring is to stay with the slave master. The slave master can then sell them, as Leviticus 25:44-46 instructs.

And I already answered you. If you whip your slave from the back, they will likely not die right away. Is it okay to whip a slave, as long as they do not die right away?
-

 

[Paulomycin]

A slave cannot provide for anyone while they are enslaved.

Good, you're starting to get it.

But the Bible says the freed slave is not to go free empty handed.

That is CORRECT! Notice the consistency with which God cares about providing for the slave.

So when the slave is set free, why can he NOT have his child/children then?

He's gotta get a job. "Give a man a fish. . ." isn't even in the Bible. How could you have forgotten that?

God tells His readers the children are to stay with the master. That' it. Why would that be?

Will you please quit unfairly accusing me of evading your questions? What part of "children starving" did you overlook? A single hand-out isn't going to do the job.

Nowhere does the Verse require the slave's consent. But let's steelman your argument, in Verse 4 anyways, and assume he does...

It doesn't say the wife is forced upon him. So yeah, consent is safe to assume here.

If the slave is given compensation, upon being freed, he can then provide for his new family. However, the Bible does not present this as a possible option.

A one-time "exit compensation" doesn't provide for an entire family, nor would it even get them on their feet for any length of time. The entire point is that these laws are meant to be considered ahead of time. They were made to avoid the widespread abuses that we later saw in the antebellum South, for example.

However, the slave likely is not going to leave his wife and kids. He would feel like a tool. So his only option is to stay, for life.

And here you are, just like that guy, who failed to read the fine print. . .or keep his ear to the street, or failed to listen to other Jews, or avoided synagogue lessons. lol. Wow.

In a nutshell, this is what you have revealed in our discussion.

In a nutshell, this is how you're deliberately strawmanning my position. . .

-- God tells His readers what slave owners can to legally do with slaves who refuse to convert or are not Israelites.

Thanks for admitting the manumission clause.

They can be kept for life, treated as property for life, listen and not talk back, do everything they are told, and do not run -- (all because God is watching).

Wrong. I totally said they can run. The record is clear that I already cited Deuteronomy 23:15 They can always run. And no Jew is allowed to send them back.

-- Israelites can also have their hand forces to stay for life.

Quote me. Hint: You can't.

-- If you are the off-spring of slave love, you are the property of your slave master (period). He can then sell such a deemed slave at will.

Then that's a great deterrent not to get married while you're serving as a slave. Isn't it?

Thank you for your time.

LOL. We're not done yet! FAR FROM IT! You never made a case why slavery is bad to begin with. You're an atheist, remember? You can't borrow (i.e. "steal") from a Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic.

 

[Larniavc]

If you think that this is what the Bible teaches, where do you get this from?

It says in the Bible. Which you already told me you have not read.

Maybe read it?

 

[Paulomycin]

The eye for an eye thingy, you keep wanting to peddle, does not apply to "slaves".

But where's that written? Oh wait ,lol, it isn't! Because that "ONE LAW" thing I keep repeating and you keep blatantly ignoring. You must really hate Exodus 12:49 and Leviticus 24:22 because it gets in the way of your framed narrative.

Otherwise, you would not be able to read a special considerations Verse ---- (Exodus 21:21).

You failed to explain how to plan ahead for it. Otherwise, it's not much of a "special consideration", as you're reading into it. It's like you're saying a slave master would actually want to roll the dice on his entire life like that.

Slaves do not have the same rights as the free. The slave master is free. The slave is not. If the slave master was to beat another slave master, yes, such a law (eye for an eye) would apply

Nope. You cited only one exception. And it's a very specific exception. No slave master in his right mind would plan to routinely and sadistically beat his slaves because if (and this is a huge "if") the slave dies on the correct day. . .then "jackpot," he gets away with murder. lol. That's an idiotic scenario. There is no way you'd commit to it. Even with today's modern medical treatments and diagnostic tools.

You keep trying to rationalize the buying of slaves.

You keep trying to equivocate the antebellum definition of it.

The Bible tells us that all slave off-spring is to stay with the slave master. The slave master can then sell them, as Leviticus 25:44-46 instructs.

You can't say you weren't warned.

And I already answered you. If you whip your slave from the back, they will likely not die right away. Is it okay to whip a slave, as long as they do not die right away?

You never explained how you, in playing the hypothetical role of the diabolical slave-master, could actually apply this as a common practice in real life.

Because you can't, and you know you can't.

 

[cvanwey]

Good, you're starting to get it.



That is CORRECT! Notice the consistency with which God cares about providing for the slave.



He's gotta get a job. "Give a man a fish. . ." isn't even in the Bible. How could you have forgotten that?



Will you please quit unfairly accusing me of evading your questions? What part of "children starving" did you overlook? A single hand-out isn't going to do the job.



It doesn't say the wife is forced upon him. So yeah, consent is safe to assume here.



A one-time "exit compensation" doesn't provide for an entire family, nor would it even get them on their feet for any length of time. The entire point is that these laws are meant to be considered ahead of time. They were made to avoid the widespread abuses that we later saw in the antebellum South, for example.



And here you are, just like that guy, who failed to read the fine print. . .or keep his ear to the street, or failed to listen to other Jews, or avoided synagogue lessons. lol. Wow.



In a nutshell, this is how you're deliberately strawmanning my position. . .



Thanks for admitting the manumission clause.



Wrong. I totally said they can run. The record is clear that I already cited Deuteronomy 23:15 They can always run. And no Jew is allowed to send them back.



Quote me. Hint: You can't.



Then that's a great deterrent not to get married while you're serving as a slave. Isn't it?



LOL. We're not done yet! FAR FROM IT! You never made a case why slavery is bad to begin with. You're an atheist, remember? You can't borrow (i.e. "steal") from a Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic.

My opinion is subjective, just like yours. But I'm willing to bet we agree more than you might think

I'll fast forward quite a lot here... I have rebuttals to all your responses, but I grow tired of responding to the same 'ol debunked arguments again and again.

God tells his followers that owning slaves as property, and beating them, is okay. He could have not weighed in on slavery at all, or said something completely different. This means God's moral nature states that, under the cloak of slavery, as He defines it, beating is also fine. I do not think this is fine. Do you agree with God? Or, do you agree w/ me.

And before you go offering the whole false dilemma thingy again, let me re-phrase {A) or B)}:

A) Treating some humans as property, for which you can beat for life, and treat as property, is okay.
B) Treating some humans as property, for which you can beat for life, and treat as property, is not okay.

 

[Paulomycin]

My opinion is subjective, just like yours.

No, the book is objective. You're just quote-mining it. Objective opinions are the only ones that count in reality.

I'll fast forward quite a lot here... I have rebuttals to all your responses, but I grow tired of responding to the same 'ol debunked arguments again and again.

Thank you for admitting you were debunked and that you're now running away from the arguments.

God tells his followers that owning slaves as property, and beating them, is okay.

Within strict limits. It's also okay to run. Deuteronomy 23:15

So yeah, you constructed a paper tiger, is all. Edit: Or should I say. . ."strawman."

He could have not weighed in on slavery at all, or said something completely different.

He did by instituting unique limitations that are exclusive to Judaism alone.

This means God's moral nature states that, under the cloak of slavery, as He defines it, beating is also fine. I do not think this is fine. Do you agree with God? Or, do you agree me.

I do not agree with your extreme and equivocal use of "beating" that doesn't apply to the actual biblical text. I am never obligated to agree with your spin, cherry-picking, and loaded question fallacies.

And before you go offering the whole false dilemma thingy again, let me re-phrase {A) or B)}:

OH, so you actually ADMIT your false dilemma is forced! Nice!

 

[Paulomycin]

Cvanwey,

You never made a case why slavery is bad to begin with. You're an atheist, remember? You can't borrow (i.e. "steal") from a Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic.

^ I hope you're not "fast-forwarding" past this one. Be a real shame if you did.

 

[cvanwey]

No, the book is objective. You're just quote-mining it. Objective opinions are the only ones that count in reality.

Morality is subjective. But I'm willing to bet we agree on my root question

Thank you for admitting you were debunked and that you're now running away from the arguments.

LOL. Please learn to read the responses.

Within strict limits. It's also okay to run. Deuteronomy 23:15

So yeah, you constructed a paper tiger, is all. Edit: Or should I say. . ."strawman."

You crack me up

What if they are caught? If slavery isn't that bad, and so openly monitored, then then why would they run?

And I really like the use of "within strict limits". Which-is-to-say... If you are not an Israelite or you do not convert - (a lifetime of beatings and being treated as property is warranted by God Himself).

He did by instituting unique limitations that are exclusive to Judaism alone.

I think you missed my point. If God did not weigh in on slavery at all, then you could argue He thinks it's "bad". But not only did He weigh in on the topic, He tells His readers what they can do specifically - (like beating, passing down to your off-spring, they are your property, etc.).

I do not agree

with your extreme and equivocal use of "beating" that doesn't apply to the actual biblical text. I am never obligated to agree with your spin, cherry-picking, and loaded question fallacies.

No, you already agreed. As long as it's "within strict limits" ==> Which means, they are not an Israelite or a convert.

OH, so you actually ADMIT your false dilemma is forced! Nice!

Um, please answer the subjective question, and stop avoiding:

A) Treating some humans as property, for which you can beat for life, and treat as property, is okay.
B) Treating some humans as property, for which you can beat for life, and treat as property, is not okay.

 

[cvanwey]

Cvanwey,



^ I hope you're not "fast-forwarding" past this one. Be a real shame if you did.

I already answered this... Please read my responses. Morals are subjective, but I bet we agree more than we differ. I now ask you..

If you are not born into the correct race, and/or you believe in a differing god(s), is it okay for me to enslave you for life? Wait a minute, no need to answer. God already answered for you. The answer is YES.

 

[Paulomycin]

Morality is subjective.

1. If that is the case, then none of your moral arguments can even get off the launchpad. They're stuck at your subjective position alone.

2. If that is merely your subjective opinion, then I'm never obligated to accept it.

3. Your careless use of "is" fronts the statement as-if it were an absolute. Which. . .it isn't. lol.

But I'm willing to bet we agree on my root question

Why? Because you need to leech off of someone else's Judeo-Christian ethic?

LOL. Please learn to read the responses.

You were clearly debunked and aren't used to it. Care to try again? I can literally do this all day.

You crack me up

I think strawman fallacies are funny too.

What if they are caught?

What if you were caught not reading the actual verse I cited?

And I really like the use of "within strict limits". Which-is-to-say... If you are not an Israelite or you do not convert - (a lifetime of beatings and being treated as property is warranted y God Himself).

You forgot the part where the level of severity must be dialed-down quite a bit, because you can't do any visible damage that you would have to free the slave over. Violence is a pretty risky thing in real-life. You treat it like some sort-of Warner Brothers cartoon. And a master cannot afford to take that risk.

Moreover, his investment is on the line here. If I wouldn't want to damage my automatic dishwasher, how much more loathe would I be to damage a dishwasher that could cry, or possibly run away???

But not only did He weigh in on the topic,

Just not the way you're eisegetically interpreting it. But thanks for admitting that God weighed-in on slavery. Appreciated.

He tells His readers what they can do specifically - (like beating, passing down to your off-spring, they are your property, etc.).

Again, it's not a license so much as it is a deterrent. For both the slave as well as the master. We really don't want a wife and kids to get mixed up in this situation at all, and it's best to deter marriage altogether like this. I simply assumed you were smart enough to notice.

Oh, and there you go with the equivocal use of "beating" again.

No, you already agreed. As long as it's

"within strict limits" ==> Which means, they are not an Israelite or a convert.

Or a tooth is knocked out, or an eye is gouged, or equivalent damage that is part of the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it. Which also means they are free to run from their master.

Um, please answer the subjective question, and stop avoiding:

Since when is anyone obligated to answer a false dilemma?

Since when is anyone obligated to answer a purely subjective question? You're implying this has no objective power over me in debate. Which is good to know.

A) Treating some humans as property, for which you can beat for life, and treat as property, is okay.
B) Treating some humans as property, for which you can beat for life, and treat as property, is not okay.

Again, I do not agree with your extreme and equivocal use of "beating" that doesn't apply to the actual biblical text. I am never obligated to agree with your spin, cherry-picking, and loaded question fallacies. Period.

 

[Paulomycin]

I already answered this... Please read my responses. Morals are subjective, but I bet we agree more than we differ. I now ask you..

No, you're not accounting for morality at all, here. You were already refuted in my previous post about "morals are subjective." I disagree. Morals are objective, because there is over 700 years of proof and evidence for a moral law-giver. When it comes to apologetics, I'm a Thomist; not a fideist. Please don't forget that.

Why is slavery bad from an exclusively atheist POV, Cvanwey?

If you are not born into the correct race, and/or you believe in a differing god(s), is it okay for me to enslave you for life? Wait a minute, no need to answer. God already answered for you. The answer is YES.

Not the way you're deliberately spinning it.

Why are you still deliberately omitting the incentive to convert to Judaism?

Why are you still deliberately omitting the incentive to literally run away and return to your country of origin???

Are you attempting to fill the thread with redundant static?

 

[cvanwey]

1. If that is the case, then none of your moral arguments can even get off the launchpad. They're stuck at your subjective position alone.

2. If that is merely your subjective opinion, then I'm never obligated to accept it.

3. Your careless use of "is" fronts the statement as-if it were an absolute. Which. . .it isn't. lol.



Why? Because you need to leech off of someone else's Judeo-Christian ethic?



You were clearly debunked and aren't used to it. Care to try again? I can literally do this all day.



I think strawman fallacies are funny too.



What if you were caught not reading the actual verse I cited?



You forgot the part where the level of severity must be dialed-down quite a bit, because you can't do any visible damage that you would have to free the slave over. Violence is a pretty risky thing in real-life. You treat it like some sort-of Warner Brothers cartoon. And a master cannot afford to take that risk.

Moreover, his investment is on the line here. If I wouldn't want to damage my automatic dishwasher, how much more loathe would I be to damage a dishwasher that could cry, or possibly run away???



Just not the way you're eisegetically interpreting it. But thanks for admitting that God weighed-in on slavery. Appreciated.



Again, it's not a license so much as it is a deterrent. For both the slave as well as the master. We really don't want a wife and kids to get mixed up in this situation at all, and it's best to deter marriage altogether like this. I simply assumed you were smart enough to notice.

Oh, and there you go with the equivocal use of "beating" again.


Or a tooth is knocked out, or an eye is gouged, or equivalent damage that is part of the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it. Which also means they are free to run from their master.



Since when is anyone obligated to answer a false dilemma?

Since when is anyone obligated to answer a purely subjective question? You're implying this has no objective power over me in debate. Which is good to know.



Again, I do not agree with your extreme and equivocal use of "beating" that doesn't apply to the actual biblical text. I am never obligated to agree with your spin, cherry-picking, and loaded question fallacies. Period.

You are not obligated to respond at all. But you keep avoiding a very direct question, and are calling it "loaded". I keep giving you all the leeway you could ever need, as also again expressed below. But it's becoming increasingly clear you will likely not answer. And I have to wonder why?????

Morals are subjective. I cannot objectively justify why slavery is wrong. But here's the kicker...

God sanctions slavery. You can add all the qualifiers you'd like (i.e.):

If you are an Israelite, a Christian, your eye gets knocked out, your teeth get knocked out, other other other, you are exempt from God's sanctioned life-time slavery clause. Which is it say, "within defined limits". Otherwise, you can be treated like property for life, beaten for life, and told what to do for life. And why do we know this, because God told us so.

If morals are objective, then we would all 'just know' that such sanctioned practices are fine and dandy, like God does. God gives us our morals, right? Much like you and I 'just know 'murder', 'trespassing', and 'theft' are wrong.

 

[cvanwey]

Morals are objective, because there is over 700 years of proof and evidence for a moral law-giver.

Prove this right now, and I will no longer be a skeptic.

 

[cvanwey]

Oh, and there you go with the equivocal use of "beating" again.

Um, it says 'beat' in the Bible. I did not make this up

 

[Paulomycin]

You are not obligated to respond at all.

You missed my point. Questions relying on logical fallacies are objectively in-error.

But you keep avoiding a very direct question, and are calling it "loaded".

A loaded question is the actual name of a logical fallacy. I'm honestly quite shocked that someone who's posted here for so long was unaware of that.

I keep giving you all the leeway you could ever need, as also again expressed below. But it's becoming increasingly clear you will likely not answer. And I have to wonder why?????

Because you are in-error. A rational discussion cannot continue if you insist on forcing your own logical errors.

Morals are subjective.

So you've already magically asserted. . .subjectively! lol. That is nothing. Remember, only objective opinion counts in rational discussion.

I cannot objectively justify why slavery is wrong.

Oh, thank you for that admission.

But here's the kicker...God sanctions slavery.

God sanctions a type of slavery that is worlds away from what you imagine. A kind-of slavery that, if it were ever consistently applied in the United States, there would be no chattel slavery and no Civil War. Slaves would have been routinely granted freedom all the way back in 1626! Racial segregation would have never existed. Race wouldn't even be a factor. There would be no fugitive slave laws. There would hardly be anyone born into slavery, that'd just be a tiny blip on the radar.

You can add all the qualifiers you'd like (i.e.):

Atheists care little for details. Just gets in the way of their framed narrative.

If you are an Israelite, a Christian, your eye gets knocked out, your teeth get knocked out, other other other, you are exempt from God's sanctioned life-time slavery clause. Which is it say, "within defined limits". Otherwise, you can be treated like property for life, beaten for life, and told what to do for life.

You were already refuted on the [exact] limitations to being treated like property, beatings, and told what to do "for life." <-- Which isn't necessarily so. You're just desperately spinning it that way.

If morals are objective, then we would all 'just know' that such sanctioned practices are fine and dandy, like God does. God gives us our morals, right? Much like you and I 'just know 'murder', 'trespassing', and 'theft' are wrong.

But you're too busy suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-20), so. . .

 

[Paulomycin]

Moreover, if slavery was still legal among Christians, they would be obligated to treat one another like brothers, thus abolishing it to "slavery-in-name-only." See Ephesians 5 & 6, as well as the letter of Paul to Philemon.

 

[cvanwey]

Why? Because you need to leech off of someone else's Judeo-Christian ethic?

I don't think so. If I was leeching off of your "moral compass", I might think beating slaves is perfectly fine; (under the approved conditions of course)