Can morality exist without God cont..

[Dave Ellis]

In this scripture, the literal context from the original Hebrew was maidservant. The scripture is saying that if a man sells her daughter to be a maid, if the master likes her, she can be his personal house keeper.

And he took her for himself? In Biblespeak, that means someone you sleep with.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Starting a new line of questioning. Would you call it immoral for a homeless man to go hungry on the street?

The situation itself is amoral.

The moral aspect is what other people do. If they have the ability to help him, and they do, then that's a moral act. If they have the ability to help him and they don't, then it's immoral.

 

[SteveB28]

Yes, can be used to describe both a maidservant or female slave. However if you notice that on the different contexts that I showed you (x19) for example? It says that the context of "maid servant" was used 19 times in the bible. On the other source that I use (logos bible software) if you click on that context, it lists every verse that context was used. Unfortunately for you my friend, the context of "maidservant " is used for exodus 20:7. Your attack on my integrity has failed just like your "hyperlink" attack. Oh yeah, if you go back to your post with the 20 something quotes, click on all thy hyperlinks. They all go to the KJV regardless of the translation you quoted.
"...first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5) NIV (trust me...it's the NIV but the hyperlink that automatically is generated goes to the KJV. [emoji4]

And I repeat, what do you think a maidservant or manservant were in biblical times? Particularly when, in the case of the daughter, they were clearly SOLD into that position!?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

And he took her for himself? In Biblespeak, that means someone you sleep with.

Can you back that up with references rather than just making blind assumptions.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The situation itself is amoral.

The moral aspect is what other people do. If they have the ability to help him, and they do, then that's a moral act. If they have the ability to help him and they don't, then it's immoral.

OK, let's say he lived in a country where their was no welfare state. So rather than facing death on the street he instead sold himself as a slave for a temporary period of time (say 7 years). And during this time he was well taken care of and had all his needs met? Would that homeless man be immoral to sell himself as a slave? Would it be immoral for a man to buy him if it meant that it would save his life and give him second chance once his debt was paid?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Ellis]

Can you back that up with references rather than just making blind assumptions.

So, I take it you believe the bible has no problems with homosexuality, right?

All it says is if a man lays with another man as he would a woman. There's nothing in there about sex at all. Right?

 

[Dave Ellis]

OK, let's say he lived in a country where their was no welfare state. So rather than facing death on the street he instead sold himself as a slave for a temporary period of time (say 7 years). And during this time he was well taken care of and had all his needs met? Would that homeless man be immoral to sell himself as a slave? Would it be immoral for a man to buy him if it meant that it would save his life and give him second chance once his debt was paid?

Would it be immoral to try to sell himself? Not necessarily

Would it be immoral for a man to buy him as a slave? Absolutely, under every possible circumstance.

If the man has a need for workers, and has the money to buy him as a slave, he has the money to give him employment without slavery being involved. He can hire him, not enslave him.

That will allow the man to get back on his feet, without being enslaved. Is that too hard to comprehend?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So, I take it you believe the bible has no problems with homosexuality, right?

All it says is if a man lays with another man as he would a woman. There's nothing in there about sex at all. Right?

Except for the fact that the word "lay" found in Leviticus 20:13 literally means sexual relations. Would you like to try again.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Would it be immoral to try to sell himself? Not necessarily

Would it be immoral for a man to buy him as a slave? Absolutely, under every possible circumstance.

If the man has a need for workers, and has the money to buy him as a slave, he has the money to give him employment without slavery being involved. He can hire him, not enslave him.

That will allow the man to get back on his feet, without being enslaved. Is that too hard to comprehend?

Would you consider military service "slavery"?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Ellis]

Except for the fact that the word "lay" found in Leviticus 20:13 literally means sexual relations. Would you like to try again.

Citation needed

 

[Dave Ellis]

Would you consider military service "slavery"?

No, there's some major differences between slavery and being in the military.

The army doesn't buy you from slave traders, you are compensated for your service, etc.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No, there's some major differences between slavery and being in the military.

The army doesn't buy you from slave traders, you are compensated for your service, etc.

Those who have been in the military have experienced something like it — being legally bound to an employer and to a job that one cannot simply “quit” at will, not free to leave without permission, subject to discipline if one disobeys or is grossly negligent — all of this is familiar enough to those of us who have served in the military. And yet we know that the daily life of a good soldier is not especially hard. This is what it was like to be a slave.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Ellis]

Those who have been in the military have experienced something like it — being legally bound to an employer and to a job that one cannot simply “quit” at will, not free to leave without permission, subject to discipline if one disobeys or is grossly negligent — all of this is familiar enough to those of us who have served in the military. And yet we know that the daily life of a good soldier is not especially hard. This is what it was like to be a slave.

And what happens if a commander beats a serviceman while in the armed forces for disobeying? Are members of the armed forces owned by the military for life? Can the military sell you to people? Can the military keep your wife as permanent property when you leave the service?

I would suspect a lot of people that currently serve, or have served in the past would take issue to being compared to a slave.

Get real

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Citation needed

“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13) NIV

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " (Leviticus 20:13) KJV

The word "lieth" is originally, שָׁכַב shâkab, shaw-kab'; a primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose):—× at all, cast down, (lover-)lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay. Strong's H7901.

It was used for lie down, for rest, sexual connection, or decease. But the context used specifically in Leviticus 20:13 is "sexual connection" per my logos bible software. Thus "sexual relations " is the appropriate meaning for "lieth".

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

And what happens if a commander beats a serviceman while in the armed forces for disobeying?

Ever go to USMC boot camp? It is called quarter decked and sand pitted. Other services call it "Incentive Training".

Are members of the armed forces owned by the military for life?

Neither were Hebrew slaves unless they requested it.

Can the military sell you to people?

It is called a PCS transfer. It is not selling, but more like a trade.

Can the military keep your wife as permanent property when you leave the service?

The military does not issue wives. However, if they did, they would be government property just like a soldier is considered to be government property.

I would suspect a lot of people that currently serve, or have served in the past would take issue to being compared to a slave.

No, not really. Most people I have served with have compared it to being a slave of the government.

Get real

Got it. Anything else?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Just saying so doesn't make it so. Read the verses I posted about how the strangers, ie pagans in the land of Israel were to be treated well just like their fellow Hebrews. It had to be a voluntary selling of oneself, see Jeremiah 34:13-14.

de: So, taking prisoners of war as permanent slaves, and selling your daughters into slavery counts as voluntarily selling oneself? Beating slaves is A-OK?

I conceded that POWs could be permanent. I am not sure if you are an American so it may not carry much weight, but even the Constitution allows POWs to be enslaved and they were, most recently during WWII. The selling of daughters was like an apprenticeship to wifehood. They could learn what it was going to be like to be married to her owner (except no sex) and if he decided he didn't like her she was set free after a time. You have to remember that in ancient times, there was no police force so unmarried women were very vulnerable so marriage for women was much more important than today. So it is with beating slaves. If a slave starts fighting his owner or poisoning his family or not doing his job, the owner couldn't just call the police he had to punish him in some way. But remember if the slave thought the owner beat him too much then he could flee to a sanctuary city and he was free from that moment on, ie Deuteronomy 23:15-16.

↑

ed: Where is it?

de: All actions have consequences, those consequences are objective. From that basis we can examine and make moral judgments.

Yes, the consequences of moral decisions are objective but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the BASIS or reasoning for making those decisions. What is your objective basis for making your moral decisions? If it is because you value humans above all other species because you are one, that is not an objective basis because there is nothing in evolution that places any intrinsic or objective value on humans over other species. It is just a decision based on your own subjective feelings for yourself and other humans. Even other humans don't value all humans and some animal rights people value other species over humans.

↑

ed: Yes you can, if our morality is based on His objectively existing character then it has an objective basis.

de: Yes, but his opinions on the matter are necessarily subjective (all opinions and judgments are subjective by definition). Therefore even if a god exists, you can't have objective morality.

But the difference is that God's opinion is based on something that exists outside of the human mind, ie objectively in relation to humans. While human morality is just based on another humans opinion of which both are just subjective feelings that exist within human minds. Again, the basis for morality if there is no God is subjective.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ever go to USMC boot camp? It is called quarter decked and sand pitted. Other services call it "Incentive Training".

Pushups and other physical activity is not the same as receiving a severe beating.

Try again.

Neither were Hebrew slaves unless they requested it.

I'm not taking about Hebrew slaves, and you know that.

How about non-Hebrew slaves? Why the purposeful evasion of them?

It is called a PCS transfer. It is not selling, but more like a trade.

Getting reassigned is not the same as being sold to another person who owns you as property. You're grasping at straws.

The military does not issue wives. However, if they did, they would be government property just like a soldier is considered to be government property.

Soldiers are not considered to be government property.

No, not really. Most people I have served with have compared it to being a slave of the government.

Then they don't know what slavery is.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It says you can buy slaves from the pagan nations around you.

It does not say people willingly decided it would be a good idea to take a long stroll into Judea just to enslave themselves for life. That's ridiculous.

They are coming from the pagan nations around Judea and/or when Hebrews traveled into surrounding nations. And yes indentured servitude was a very good idea in ancient times when the economy went south or famine struck your homeland.

 

[Dave Ellis]

They are coming from the pagan nations around Judea and/or when Hebrews traveled into surrounding nations. And yes indentured servitude was a very good idea in ancient times when the economy went south or famine struck your homeland.

No, indentured servitude is immoral.

If you are wealthy enough to support slaves, you are wealthy enough to employ free men.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Pushups and other physical activity is not the same as receiving a severe beating.

Try again.



I'm not taking about Hebrew slaves, and you know that.

How about non-Hebrew slaves? Why the purposeful evasion of them?



Getting reassigned is not the same as being sold to another person who owns you as property. You're grasping at straws.



Soldiers are not considered to be government property.



Then they don't know what slavery is.

And you, my friend, don't know much about the military. However, the point is not to say that the military is some sort of slavery. It is to explain to you that slavery in in the bible is nothing like you imagine it to be. During that time, slavery was an act of mercy to those in need. It was an ability to give people a second chance when their did not seem to be another option. Yes, there were some masters who were brutal and wicked. Some slaves did live very harsh conditions. There would not be laws and regulations against such behavior if it did not occur. However, God condemned them. There are times where God will allow things to happen that he hated. Take divorce for example.

God hated divorce:
"For I hate divorce!" says the LORD, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty," says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife." (Malachi 2:16)

But God allowed divorce:
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house," (Deuteronomy 24:1)

God hated divorce, but He allowed it to happen for a reason:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (Matthew 19:8)

God despised slavery, however He allowed it because it was a consequence of a sinful world.