Is Slavery Moral?

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
You'll just have to be patient. Remember, "Patience is a virtue." ;) Besides, I'm not attempting a "gotcha!" Such a gesture on my part is hardly forthcoming since I don't believe that either of our respective viewpoints reflects a fully unified position; so no one is going to 'win' here since no one has the final word and I don't expect anything in the way of a heavenly proliferation of "my truth" or for a form of anti-biblical nihilism to turn overly viral. These issues are always open to further exploration, investigation, analysis, and other considerations.

Anyway, here it is:

2Philovoid's Provisional Definition of “Biblical Slavery”

A social and economic arrangement of and by ancient Israelites during the first millennium B.C.E. in which servitude was instituted within Israelite society and legally imposed in binding fashion by advantaged Israelite persons upon other disadvantaged persons, the process of which usually involved either a voluntary contractual agreement with certain terms of limitation between a master and a potential servant/slave, or an involuntary imposition of indefinite servitude that may have come as an outcome of capture in warfare or as a penalty due to criminal activity.​

...and I say this definition is a provisional one, at least as far as I can reconstruct it, especially since its total possible denotation, along with its accompanying connotations, are subject to the ongoing contextual flux of study through a broad spectrum of analytical triangulation using historical, sociological, anthropological, and/or legal data by which to make modern social and ethical evaluations of its ancient structures.

I also say that a definition of “biblical slavery” needs to be seen as a provisional one since its complete and immediate lived social context is partially lost to us in the past. It is also provisional because it will not do for us to only reduce its overall meaning down to a simple lexical, English definition. In reaching this tentative initial definition for “biblical slavery,” I've gathered and referenced the following multiple sources by which to make a fuller, more substantial initial inventory of the various social and legal dynamics that may be found within the full corpus of ancient Israelite legal/religious literature. Of course, more sources may be added for further triangulation and development of definition...

“The English language in the Dictionary.” 1988. Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., Publishers.​

Jewish Concepts: Slavery. (2018). In Jewish Virtual Library online. Retrieved from Slavery in Judaism

Davis, David Brion. (1984). Slavery and human progress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Farber, Dr. Rabbi Zev. (n.d.). The law of the hebrew slave: Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Retrieved from The Law of the Hebrew Slave: Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy - TheTorah.com

Koller, Aaron. (n.d.). The law of the Hebrew Slave: Reading the Law Collections as complementary. Retrieved from The Law of the Hebrew Slave: Reading the Law Collections as Complementary - TheTorah.com

Patterson, Orlando. (1991). Freedom: Freedom in the making of Western culture, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Slaves and slavery. (2011). In Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved from SLAVES AND SLAVERY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Before we move forward, I have to ask you some basic questions (using my common sense). I'm certainly not trying to change the subject. However, prior to proceeding, it seems as though none of the above pertains to Non-Jews, (which is the largest part).

Why didn't Yahweh just state, 'don't own any humans as property'?

Furthermore, none of this seems to address Non-Jewish people? Which would mean non-Jews are to be property for life, and beaten just short of death (according to scripture).

If a Christian nation was to again invoke slavery into law, under a theocracy, please name a Biblical verse which would actually disallow slavery?

I hate to jump ahead... However, I'm trying to possibly save many email exchanges. Because none of your response appears to address the non-Jewish mentioned slaves?


Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Again the word "forced" does not exist in the text. The peace terms could have been "dishonest"? Again you have a clear and present bias.
To acknowledge that "offering terms of peace" before someone opens their gate could possibly be a ruse isn't bias. Pretending it's impossible is though. And again, I'm saying that tributaries are forced. Be a tributary, or die. That's forced.
When you quote someone's actual words use " " when you are paraphrasing them use ' '. This is real simple. How do you acquire involuntary slaves....by taking them, which is exactly what the law condemns.
The law says "stealing" them. You've already stated that POWs can't be ruled out, and those would be involuntary, so you can't say that rule applies to all involuntary servitude.
It is a provision for an Israelite. Israelite servants were under exceptional circumstances to the general rule. This is a further provision for them. They wouldn't mention everyone, because these are simple law statements driven by context and understanding not descriptive legalese. It is NOT a modern formal law code Nicholas. Your expectations on how to deal with and understand this type of material are wrong.
Well I can't judge what their law was based on anything other than what is there. Why should I believe that Israelites went above and beyond to the extent you claimed they did based on things they didn't write down?
Regarding Jesus's condemnation of slavery, you are not talking "for starters" it is all or nothing per your statement which I quote "All it takes to condone something is to say and do nothing" Therefore whatever immoral Roman law Jesus doesn't condemn in your mind is condoning it. You are cherry picking now.
No, what you actually said didn't mention "immoral" laws, that's why I started there, see:
You are saying he should condemn every Roman law
So I started by pointing out that there were probably only a handful of laws that needed mentioning.
You find it hard to believe that condemning slavery in Roman times would make someone an enemy of the state? Are you joking, Slavery is the backbone of economy, you can't pull it out without parallelizing the nation. Why do you think it took so long to do away with it in the modern age? ....Price of goods.
I do find it hard to believe that one preacher telling a few thousand people that they shouldn't own slaves, or anything else that Romans didn't have a problem with, would be perceived by the Roman empire as an attack on their nation, yes. If He said something to the effect of, "Stop the Romans from enslaving people!" then yes, that would be crossing the line, but He also didn't say to change Roman law to outlaw adultery either. I find it hard to believe that Romans cared if someone said, "Don't do this in your personal life", no matter what "this" is.
Third, Jesus had to be condemned to death by the Jews per prophecy. The Messiah coming on the Donkey would die, it is the Messiah coming on the clouds that would take back the nations (psalm 82:8).
Again, why does it matter to an omnipotent God? If He seriously ticked off the Romans, it would still happen according to God's plan because He can make it so no matter what. Your excuse here amounts to "God couldn't".
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Before we move forward, I have to ask you some basic questions (using my common sense). I'm certainly not trying to change the subject. However, prior to proceeding, it seems as though none of the above pertains to Non-Jews, (which is the largest part).
No, my definition is meant to pertain to non-Hebrews/non-Jews, too. That's what my use of the word "other" is supposed to imply in my definition. But, if you don't think that term alone is clear enough, then let me edit the previous definition. Does the following rework of the definition read better for you?

A social and economic arrangement of and by ancient Israelites during the first millennium B.C.E. in which servitude was instituted within Israelite society and legally imposed in binding fashion by advantaged Israelite persons upon other disadvantaged persons, of either Hebrew or foreign birth, the process of which usually involved either a voluntary contractual agreement with certain terms of limitation between a master and a potential servant/slave, or an involuntary imposition of indefinite servitude that may have come as an outcome of capture in warfare or as a penalty due to criminal activity.
Why didn't Yahweh just state, 'don't own any humans as property'?
I don't know. You'd probably have to ask Him. ;) I'm guessing that the modern notion of Human Rights and/or U.S. Civil Rights, where human beings are assumed to be "equal" in the eyes of the law, didn't make headlines back then in the day because the Old Testament has this idea in it that those who resist God and remain morally corrupt pagans actually lose some of their rights and value as human beings along the way. However, if we look closely at the Old Testament, I think we can see vestiges of Positive Rights, and a little bit of Negative Rights tucked in there as well, but the language is mostly couched in terms of social responsibility as a requirement for proactively caring for other people in Israelite society. It was much more than simply live and let live.


Furthermore, none of this seems to address Non-Jewish people? Which would mean non-Jews are to be property for life, and beaten just short of death (according to scripture).
Here too, on this point, I think if we take the whole corpus of O.T. Law, we'll see that there are firm limitations in the Law that essentially disallow some kind of "beatings free-for-all" of slaves of any kind by Hebrew masters.


If a Christian nation was to again invoke slavery into law, under a theocracy, please name a Biblical verse which would actually disallow slavery?
Well, I can't think of a verse in the N.T. that directly 'disallows' slavery in total, but I can think of some that, if adhered to, would put a firm limitation on how slavery can be structured and enforced. Why would we expect the N.T. to have such a verse if 1) Slavery was basically axiomatic among many peoples in the 1st century (e.g. the Roman Empire!!!), and 2) Jesus did not primarily institute the Church and Christian faith to serve as a vehicle by which to effect a World Social Revolution and/or the immediate eradication of all human sin. I guess if a person is Post-millennial in their approach to Christian Eschatology, he might think Christianity is supposed to renovate the entire world. But if we stick with the other traditions of Christian Eschatology such as Premillenialism, Amillenialism, for that kind of social change to happen, Satan would have to be completely defrocked and removed from having any power whatsoever in the world. Otherwise, if Satan is still here and a power for us to contend with (and I think he is), we human beings are just whistling dixie if and when we entertain our vision(s) for achieving a worldwide political utopia.


But, here's something to think about. Jesus said in Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 22:25-27:

25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Of course, there's also that little bit where Jesus told His disciples to "love their enemies." As far as I can tell, Jesus wasn't saying that as a "mere suggestion."

So, these verses alone pretty much rule out God's stamp of approval upon any idea that, at the least, Christians have "a right" to own or master other Christians, especially if those Christians are actually slaves in the local economy; neither should they be treating them harshly. And come to think of it, these commands given by Jesus very much reflect what Moses(?) told the Israelites about how they were to generally treat well their fellow Hebrew brethren; Moses also told them about the requirement to treat well and not oppress friendly foreigners who sojourned in and throughout the land of Israel.


I hate to jump ahead... However, I'm trying to possibly save many email exchanges. Because none of your response appears to address the non-Jewish mentioned slaves?
Ok. No problem. Ask what you want to ask...:cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Except that it is.
You can't have one without the other.
A thought does not exist independently from brain activity.

That's what thinking is: neurons firing in your brain. And that's the activity that you see on a scanner.

When I said that it "produces" the thought, I was talking about the abstract concept of a "thought". But such a thing does not actually exist (independently from brains).
Semantically speaking the thing that produces is not also the thing that is produced. So your statement logically precludes that brain activity is a thought. I know you did not intend a self refutation, but that is the outcome.

If no thoughts exist in your brain then your proposition, about what a thought is, has no convincing truth value. It is no more meaningful than a tree growing a branch.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You never cease to amaze me. I looked for definitions which directly paralleled the Bible verses. The ones found seem to directly relate to the provided verses. Again, I read the verses from the Bible, then found definitions which directly express the content of the Biblical verses. I have no agenda, or presupposition. Again, for clarification, the Bible verses, as presented from the approved English translated versions (in which you are asking me to instead discard):

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.

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.

It would not matter if I got my definitions from the back of a cereal box. If the show fits.... I selected the best definitions which appear to directly correlate with the said above verses. I am done reiterating the same content over and over. What I find 'sophomoric', is your continuous avoidance to relevant questions and observations, followed by redirects, avoidance, and the shifting to the burden of proof.

It is blatantly clear that the provided passages speak about buying foreign slaves, in which they own for life. In which are also referred to as property, and the owner can beat them at will. To deny such obvious text, is to only display dishonesty.

So please, demonstrate to all whom are reading, the continued gymnastics in which you are attempting....

But to read your last few posts, it is quite telling, you do not want to address the main issue. Which is, if you are not a Jew, it is a free-for-all, in regards to slavery.

Thanks


Thanks! You never cease to astonish me.

See you weren't supposed to look for definitions. When you wrote the OP you presumably already had a meaning in mind. I mean it would be truly ridiculous if it took you 42 pages to even know what your OP referred to, and yet here we are with you retroactively scrounging for a definition as if I have some trap laying in wait for you.

Again, the duty to your OP is this.

Define the word slavery being used, explain which distinction is being used, and prove why these verses refer to it. (quoting it in English does not accomplish that)

Prove it k?
Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To acknowledge that "offering terms of peace" before someone opens their gate could possibly be a ruse isn't bias. Pretending it's impossible is though. And again, I'm saying that tributaries are forced. Be a tributary, or die. That's forced.

The law says "stealing" them. You've already stated that POWs can't be ruled out, and those would be involuntary, so you can't say that rule applies to all involuntary servitude.

Well I can't judge what their law was based on anything other than what is there. Why should I believe that Israelites went above and beyond to the extent you claimed they did based on things they didn't write down?

No, what you actually said didn't mention "immoral" laws, that's why I started there, see:

So I started by pointing out that there were probably only a handful of laws that needed mentioning.

I do find it hard to believe that one preacher telling a few thousand people that they shouldn't own slaves, or anything else that Romans didn't have a problem with, would be perceived by the Roman empire as an attack on their nation, yes. If He said something to the effect of, "Stop the Romans from enslaving people!" then yes, that would be crossing the line, but He also didn't say to change Roman law to outlaw adultery either. I find it hard to believe that Romans cared if someone said, "Don't do this in your personal life", no matter what "this" is.

Again, why does it matter to an omnipotent God? If He seriously ticked off the Romans, it would still happen according to God's plan because He can make it so no matter what. Your excuse here amounts to "God couldn't".

Yes the Tributaries did not have a choice other than making a peace agreement along with it's negotiated details, or fighting back. We don't know what nations this occurred in and it is in the immediate context of Israel entering the promised land. (not in but entering) As to fake peace offering there is no reason to think the Israelites were offering such a thing.

POW's are hostile Nicholas. Of course they are detained involuntary.

You say "Well I can't judge what their law was based on anything other than what is there", but you are not doing this. Time after time you bring up what ifs, could's, and maybes that are not spoken of in the text at all. I would even say you willingly try to imagine their place to adhere to your prior world view on this subject. In the course of our conversation I have listed several examples of where the Israelites went above and beyond the ANE so I am just confused why you ask as if they don't.

This statement "All it takes to condone something is to say and do nothing" Is an absolute and broad slogan, not a carefully crafted response to what I said. You cannot honestly walk that back as if you were only referring to a single instance of Roman law.

It was one preacher which Conquered Rome. You find it improbable that the empire would care about Jesus's preaching but that is likely due to living in a time where people can speak freely about their beliefs. Go to North Korea and preach that enslaving people in labor camps is wrong. How long do you think that will last?

God cannot do what is logically impossible, or what is against His nature, like failing prophecy. Omnipotence is a complex term, if you want a definition that will make your eyes bleed click the spoiler.

S is omnipotent at a time t if and only if S can at t actualize any state of affairs which is not described by counterfactuals about the free acts of others and which is broadly logically possible for someone to actualize, given the same hard past at t and the same true counterfactuals about free acts of others (William Lane Craig)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Thanks! You never cease to astonish me.

See you weren't supposed to look for definitions. When you wrote the OP you presumably already had a meaning in mind. I mean it would be truly ridiculous if it took you 42 pages to even know what your OP referred to, and yet here we are with you retroactively scrounging for a definition as if I have some trap laying in wait for you.

Again, the duty to your OP is this.

Define the word slavery being used, explain which distinction is being used, and prove why these verses refer to it. (quoting it in English does not accomplish that)

Prove it k?
Thanks.

I've thoroughly explained my position, and have justified it many of times now. The fact that you do not accept or like the reality of such conclusions, does not then render you victorious ;)

The Bible passages speak for themselves. They are apparently provided from the 'inerrant word of God', as expressed via:


2 Timothy 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

(and)

Proverbs 30:5 New International Version (NIV)
5 “Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

**********

So if the Bible is without error... So if the Bible is the objective written standard, of which all humans are to follow.... So if the Bible provides the true and unfettered definitions, as to which all humans must tailor their own definitions around... It would only make sense to find such definitions in which actually parallel the Biblical verses. Therefore, I did my best to locate definitions in which actually compliment or represent the expression provided from Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46. Because again, using the Oxford dictionary, Webster dictionary, or other, would not do the Bible Justice really. It is only honest to find the proper descriptions, in accordance with the explanations given by the 'objective and perfect' source.

In such a case, the definitions I provided seem to accomplish this...

And for the umpteenth time now... You are requesting me to do, what all English Bible versions have YET to do. Which is to 'update' the Biblical verses, because they do not appear to represent the Bible in a positive light, for your liking. Again, this is the 'perfect word of God'. I should not need to do such a thing. Furthermore, many apparent well educated and justified translators, for all English versions, did not seem to feel the need to do such a thing either. Therefore, why are you holding me to an even higher standard? This is ludicrous.

My OP was simple... It mentions verses from the OT and NT. And I also stated that God appears to 'condone' such verses. Well, after 40+ pages.... This is only further confirmed.

So please keep requesting what you are requesting, in which I have already answered. It changes nothing. The verses mention "Non-Jews being kept for life.' The verses mention, Non-Jews being beaten just short of death." The verses mention Non-Jews being property for life."

None of this has really ANYTHING to do with 'indentured servants", 'debtors", or other....

Thanks
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
This statement "All it takes to condone something is to say and do nothing" Is an absolute and broad slogan, not a carefully crafted response to what I said. You cannot honestly walk that back as if you were only referring to a single instance of Roman law.
Okay, you need to read what you wrote to me originally and what I replied to again very carefully. I haven't walked that claim back at all. Rome had laws that coincided with Christian values, and Jesus didn't need to condemn them. Rome had laws against stealing for instance, so He didn't need to condemn those Roman laws. You didn't say "immoral" the first time around, you said "all" Roman laws, and that is where it all started. There are probably only a handful of things that Rome allowed that Jesus would have to mention to cover all of the things Christianity forbids and Rome permits.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
God cannot do what is logically impossible, or what is against His nature, like failing prophecy. Omnipotence is a complex term, if you want a definition that will make your eyes bleed click the spoiler.
God hardened Pharaoh's heart to keep him from doing what he would naturally have done until the plagues were over. Seems to me that God would also be capable of preventing Rome from doing what it would have naturally done until Jesus' ministry was over. I don't see any logical inconsistencies there, and controlling human behavior to ensure His will is done isn't outside of His nature either.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Semantically speaking the thing that produces is not also the thing that is produced. So your statement logically precludes that brain activity is a thought. I know you did not intend a self refutation, but that is the outcome.

You said it yourself: "semantically speaking..."

So you are arguing semantics.
In reality, I don't see any objective difference between the conceptual abstract thought on the one hand and the actual physical brain activity on the other, as you can't have one without the other. The "thought" only exists as an abstract concept. What it actually physically is, are neurons firing in a brain.

No neurons firing = no thought.

Thoughts do not exist absent firing neurons in a living brain.

If no thoughts exist in your brain then your proposition, about what a thought is, has no convincing truth value. It is no more meaningful than a tree growing a branch.

If a tree had a conscious brain to think with, I'm sure he'ld find his branches very meaningfull.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I've thoroughly explained my position, and have justified it many of times now. The fact that you do not accept or like the reality of such conclusions, does not then render you victorious ;)

The Bible passages speak for themselves. They are apparently provided from the 'inerrant word of God', as expressed via:


2 Timothy 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

(and)

Proverbs 30:5 New International Version (NIV)
5 “Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

**********

So if the Bible is without error... So if the Bible is the objective written standard, of which all humans are to follow.... So if the Bible provides the true and unfettered definitions, as to which all humans must tailor their own definitions around... It would only make sense to find such definitions in which actually parallel the Biblical verses. Therefore, I did my best to locate definitions in which actually compliment or represent the expression provided from Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46. Because again, using the Oxford dictionary, Webster dictionary, or other, would not do the Bible Justice really. It is only honest to find the proper descriptions, in accordance with the explanations given by the 'objective and perfect' source.

In such a case, the definitions I provided seem to accomplish this...

And for the umpteenth time now... You are requesting me to do, what all English Bible versions have YET to do. Which is to 'update' the Biblical verses, because they do not appear to represent the Bible in a positive light, for your liking. Again, this is the 'perfect word of God'. I should not need to do such a thing. Furthermore, many apparent well educated and justified translators, for all English versions, did not seem to feel the need to do such a thing either. Therefore, why are you holding me to an even higher standard? This is ludicrous.

My OP was simple... It mentions verses from the OT and NT. And I also stated that God appears to 'condone' such verses. Well, after 40+ pages.... This is only further confirmed.

So please keep requesting what you are requesting, in which I have already answered. It changes nothing. The verses mention "Non-Jews being kept for life.' The verses mention, Non-Jews being beaten just short of death." The verses mention Non-Jews being property for life."

None of this has really ANYTHING to do with 'indentured servants", 'debtors", or other....

Thanks
"The Bible passages speak for themselves". No they don't, that is why they are translated into English.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it is this.

Define the word slavery being used, explain which distinction is being used, and prove why these verses refer to it. (quoting it in English does not accomplish that)

Apart from that you have failed this OP.

Prove it K?
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay, you need to read what you wrote to me originally and what I replied to again very carefully. I haven't walked that claim back at all. Rome had laws that coincided with Christian values, and Jesus didn't need to condemn them. Rome had laws against stealing for instance, so He didn't need to condemn those Roman laws. You didn't say "immoral" the first time around, you said "all" Roman laws, and that is where it all started. There are probably only a handful of things that Rome allowed that Jesus would have to mention to cover all of the things Christianity forbids and Rome permits.
Of course Jesus didn't need to condemn the moral laws that goes without saying, no one here was confused by that. What you said was a slogan, there is no walking that back if you are being honest with me.

Pharaohs heart was already against God, Pilate's was not which you should remember from the time you were a Christian. I would really like to hear your testimony from when you became a Christian and what caused you to leave if you will share it. That can either be here or a PM.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You said it yourself: "semantically speaking..."

So you are arguing semantics.
In reality, I don't see any objective difference between the conceptual abstract thought on the one hand and the actual physical brain activity on the other, as you can't have one without the other. The "thought" only exists as an abstract concept. What it actually physically is, are neurons firing in a brain.

No neurons firing = no thought.

Thoughts do not exist absent firing neurons in a living brain.



If a tree had a conscious brain to think with, I'm sure he'ld find his branches very meaningfull.
I am referring to logical semantics Dogma. Like If A then not B.

Correlation does not, in itself, indicate identity. Additionally, the two parts, brain activity and Qualia fail to be seen as identical under the law of identity.

Dogma if you haven't thought about a word you are saying to me then I have no reason to believe the ingredients in your brain, carbon, water, potassium, sodium etc are capable of outputting a truth value in regards to the reality of our mind. So either acquire some thought to what you say or explain to me why deterministic matter is so arranged as to make your statement worthwhile in regards to the truth. Until then, while you might find your own tree branches meaningful, I don't.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Correlation does not, in itself, indicate identity.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
There is no correlation.
A thought IS brain activity.
The word "thought" is the label we choose to refer to that.


Additionally, the two parts, brain activity and Qualia fail to be seen as identical under the law of identity.

I don't see them as two parts. They are one and the same.
Can't have one without the other.

Where there is a thought, there is the brain activity.

Dogma if you haven't thought about a word you are saying to me then I have no reason to believe the ingredients in your brain, carbon, water, potassium, sodium etc are capable of outputting a truth value in regards to the reality of our mind. So either acquire some thought to what you say or explain to me why deterministic matter is so arranged as to make your statement worthwhile in regards to the truth. Until then, while you might find your own tree branches meaningful, I don't.

If you disagree, you are welcome to point out a thought that exists absent brain activity.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Pharaohs heart was already against God, Pilate's was not which you should remember from the time you were a Christian.

The Bible portrays Pontius Pilate as a reasonable person, a gentleman who thought Jesus was innocent, albeit a little deluded. We also get the impression that Pilate is somewhat of a wimp in that he allows himself to be manipulated by the high priest and elders into executing Jesus.

In truth this portrayal of Pilate is far from factual. He was an ambitious, greedy and brutal man. He once ordered his troops into the temple to loot the treasury. It must be noted that he was not the first nor the last Roman governor to do this. This serves to indicate just how much he was swayed by the opinions or threats of the elders or the high priest who was after all his personal appointee. He was also responsible for the suppression of a number of rebellions at great loss of life. His main objective during his tenure of office seems to have been to be to see just how much he could get away with in offending Jewish religious sensibilities. He was eventually dismissed from office by the emperor for "causing an unnecessary massacre". I suppose that this by way of contrast to all the necessary massacres he was responsible for. Are these the marks of a wimp? of a reasonable man? Certainly not!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟67,927.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
If you disagree, you are welcome to point out a thought that exists absent brain activity.

Again, a chicken or the egg issue. There's a continuum of "Memetic development" that takes place outside of the brain, and that shapes the new brains into a mechanism that recognizes certain patterns and not other.

Hence, you have a continuum problem of what a "thought" is, because you are cutting the "thought" and packaging it to the confines of the brain, but the brain in itself is a mechanism that's shaped and "grown" by the mechanism of the environment.

So, is it a thought that structures the brain, or brain that structures that thought? You can make a good case for both.

BTW, you are reading my thoughts right now on a computer screen. So, these obviously extend far beyond my brain.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
"The Bible passages speak for themselves". No they don't, that is why they are translated into English.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it is this.

Define the word slavery being used, explain which distinction is being used, and prove why these verses refer to it. (quoting it in English does not accomplish that)

Apart from that you have failed this OP.

Prove it K?
Thanks.

LOL, you are funny. I've answered you plenty on every single aspect...

However, I would really like to see you answer somebody honestly, in regards to non-Jews, whom are considered slaves for life, beaten for life, and property for life.

Though I doubt you actually will, with any intellectual honesty.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Of course Jesus didn't need to condemn the moral laws that goes without saying, no one here was confused by that. What you said was a slogan, there is no walking that back if you are being honest with me.
It doesn't go without saying if it seems to imply that He wouldn't be able to address such a great number of things, or that by attacking so many of Rome's laws they would have to take notice. I haven't walked back my claim one bit, and if you still think I have, then you aren't paying attention.
Pharaohs heart was already against God, Pilate's was not which you should remember from the time you were a Christian.
And? Romans 9:16-21
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟67,927.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married

1) The events that happen will happen.
2) God can choose to intervene in some, but not other.
3) God's interference is ultimately about changing the course of human events to some outcome that only God can see as fitting.

Essentially it's not much different from what he was saying about Pharaoh hardened his heart vs God hardened Pharaoh's heart. In light of the above it's the same thing. But again, it only makes sense if you accept the base axioms of the narrative. Otherwise, what's the point in discussing these details?
 
Upvote 0