• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Can morality exist without God cont..

dougangel

Regular
Site Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟130,556.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Euh... I'ld say very well.
Today, we have things like Universal Human Rights, freedom of religion, the right to express and live your sexual orientation, slavery is not longer allowed, public executions for rather trivial things no longer take place,...

1)I'd say today's western secular democracy is a LOT more moral then the culture of the bronze age that brought forward the bible.

2)Sure. Nobody ever claimed that we are living in some kind of paradise free of crime and lunatics.

3)But what is clearly the case, is that today's society is a lot safer to live in then in the old days.

4)Again, no more slavery, no more apartheid, universal human rights etc etc

Where would you rather live? In a 21st century secular democracy, or in medieval London?

1) God only knows that. All countries have good and bad things about them.
For the way the world is most countries have worked out that a democracy is better. That is a no brainer.

Governments who adopt more of a policy of "treat people the way I would want to be treated" are more stable govts

2) yes we have the same old problems of the human condition. Greed, Malice, lust, and so on.

3) I think that is debatable. It's all relative to where you live and if there's a war in your country.

4) Again I think that is relative to your position in socieity. I think there good and bad things to both. Life was much more simple in medieval times.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Involuntary slavery as a form of punishment for evil POWs and criminals is moral.
Indentured servants are cheaper than free workers, because you have to pay them enough to provide their own shelter and food and new clothing if they are free. It is cheaper to let them live in one of your own buildings and let them have food from your own supplies because then you can control any possible waste of food. You can also let them wear some of your own clothes that you no longer use anymore.

dg: Imprisonment is different to slavery.
Slavery isn't a christian principle on the declarations of Jesus.
If a person can leave the agreement made with the employer. It is not slavery.
Also there are tax issues with what your talking about.

Yes, it is different. I am not talking about American slavery I am referring to Biblical indentured servitude. Remember in OT if you didn't like your master you could flee to a sanctuary city and you were then declared free. I am not sure what tax issues you are referring to. Ancient Israel didn't really have an income tax.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Involuntary slavery as a form of punishment for evil POWs and criminals is moral.

de: I don't buy that.
Well I am in good company, our founding fathers believed that it was moral. On what basis do you not buy it? So you think it is better just to let them do nothing and rot in prison?


ed: Indentured servants are cheaper than free workers, because you have to pay them enough to provide their own shelter and food and new clothing if they are free. It is cheaper to let them live in one of your own buildings and let them have food from your own supplies because then you can control any possible waste of food. You can also let them wear some of your own clothes that you no longer use anymore.

de: They are cheaper than free workers in the modern day society because things like minimum wage exists. Back in the ancient world, that was not the case.

No, they would have been cheaper for ancient Hebrews and Christians too, because they were commanded to provide them with quality food, shelter, and clothing.

de: Likewise, free accommodation at the employers place plus some clothing could have been part of the job agreement. Some employers even today will include accommodations or a clothing allowance as part of a job contract. There's nothing wrong with that.

There's no need to make the person an indentured servant, or slave.
Well you have your opinion, but in certain extreme circumstances I think it may be necessary especially in ancient times. I think it is unlikely to be necessary in modern times because of modern welfare systems.

de: What you should be more troubled about is the lengths you're going to in order to try to justify slavery. That's what religious based moral systems lead to.
As I demonstrated earlier the biblical form of slavery is not really what moderns think of as slavery it is more like indentured servitude. It is very different from 18th and 19th century American slavery.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Below is my original. I think God's standard is, if you do it with love in mind everything is ok. So in case of another human's life is in danger, if you are doing it out of love, it is OK to steal medicine, it is even OK to do things against the other person's will (i.e. do something very painful).

Remember this is at a time when God commended that you should not take interests, should always pay the labor at end of day, should not take other people's cooking set (or something similar) for debt, it is a time of poverty, and God allowed certain things. God even allowed divorce during the time, only to protect (since people's heart is hard), in NT Jesus clearly states God does not like it. So God allowed things he did not like out of care and situation consideration in certain times.

I know what you posted, and my response was by using that as your standard, you are ignoring huge parts of what the bible says. Hence, you are deflecting.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
And by "the Romans" you mean "the Holy Roman empire" was a Christian Empire who based their laws on christianity.

No.... I mean the Romans.

Why would English common law descent from the Holy Roman Empire? English law was already established long before the Holy Roman Empire even existed, and the Holy Roman Empire never controlled England, and therefore had no direct impact on it's legal system.

Why would you even bring up the Holy Roman Empire? That's just flat out bizarre.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Well I am in good company, our founding fathers believed that it was moral. On what basis do you not buy it? So you think it is better just to let them do nothing and rot in prison?

Some founding fathers believed slavery was moral too. News flash: The founding fathers were not infallible, they had some bad ideas as well.

It's best to try to reform or rehabilitate prisoners, that way they can actually become valued members of society. The US penal system is vastly ineffective at that.

No, they would have been cheaper for ancient Hebrews and Christians too, because they were commanded to provide them with quality food, shelter, and clothing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here... Who does "they" refer to? Slaves, servants, or free people?

Well you have your opinion, but in certain extreme circumstances I think it may be necessary especially in ancient times. I think it is unlikely to be necessary in modern times because of modern welfare systems.

I'd argue the only reason you try to justify that is because it's in your holy book, and you therefore have to try to make it sound moral. Take the religious baggage out of the equation, and you simply can not justify your argument morally.

As I demonstrated earlier the biblical form of slavery is not really what moderns think of as slavery it is more like indentured servitude. It is very different from 18th and 19th century American slavery.

How many times do I have to hear this line on this thread?

Question: When you buy a slave from the pagan nations around you, is that person an indentured servant, or is that person a permanent slave that you own as property, and can pass down to your heirs?

Stop tossing back to the tired old, intellectually dishonest standard apologetic. Focusing solely on the Hebrew slaves and ignoring the parts about the non-Hebrew slaves doesn't make those parts go away from your bible. Slavery for that group was every bit like the slavery we are familiar with.
 
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Site Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟130,556.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, it is different. I am not talking about American slavery I am referring to Biblical indentured servitude. Remember in OT if you didn't like your master you could flee to a sanctuary city and you were then declared free. I am not sure what tax issues you are referring to. Ancient Israel didn't really have an income tax.

Ok I didn't pick that you were talking about OT.
What you were talking about goes on today to set up illegal immigrants in countries.

I can't agree with you that slavery is from God. I think it is a compromise. It's the best they knew for that time and culture.
Also the slavery laws are very complex in the Pentateuch's.

A war slave is treated different to someone born in Israel. They had the least rights
Like you said Indentured servitude happened for set a period of time and was different.
Woman and children are treated different as slaves in the law.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
1) God only knows that.

No. We know that. Historians know that.
A society that doesn't allow slavery is more moral then a society that does.
Yes, it is that easy...

All countries have good and bad things about them.

And the total sum of things allows for a general moral judgment.
And in that total sum, today's secular democracy is lightyears ahead of the old days when it comes to liberty, ethics, dignity, well-being, etc.

For the way the world is most countries have worked out that a democracy is better. That is a no brainer.

Then why are you arguing against it?

Governments who adopt more of a policy of "treat people the way I would want to be treated" are more stable govts

That depends on what is meant by "people", off course.
For example, in the o-so-sacred documents of the founding fathers of the US, they also express "freedom and equality for all", but it seems that by "all", they really meant just "white folks".

2) yes we have the same old problems of the human condition. Greed, Malice, lust, and so on.

No, that's not at all what I said. I don't necessarily see a problem with greed and lust, for example.

A greedy person might, for example, always buy cheap products instead of premium brands. How is that a problem?

Being greedy doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to start robbing banks...

A person with lust might, for example, have sex with his wife 5 times a day. Why is that a problem?

Or, a person with lust might have another one-night-stand every other day. Assuming, obviously, that it is with mutual consent, that also is not a problem at all.

See, that's all kind of a part of having individual freedoms.

3) I think that is debatable. It's all relative to where you live and if there's a war in your country.

We're talking about 21st century western secular democracies.
But I'ld have to admit, the US doesn't seem to be that safe, with all that gun violence and stuff....

4) Again I think that is relative to your position in socieity. I think there good and bad things to both. Life was much more simple in medieval times.

There's nothing "relative" here. In western secular democracies, slavery is illegal. Period. Apartheid is no longer the norm. Period. Discrimination based on skin color is illegal. Period.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,133
3,090
✟405,773.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No.... I mean the Romans.

Why would English common law descent from the Holy Roman Empire? English law was already established long before the Holy Roman Empire even existed, and the Holy Roman Empire never controlled England, and therefore had no direct impact on it's legal system.

Why would you even bring up the Holy Roman Empire? That's just flat out bizarre.
The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Anglo-Saxons, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (871), had developed a body of rules resembling those being used by the Germanic peoples of northern Europe. Local customs governed most matters, while the church played a large part in government. Crimes were treated as wrongs for which compensation was made to the victim.

The Norman Conquest did not bring an immediate end to Anglo-Saxon law, but a period of colonial rule by the mainly Norman conquerors produced change. Land was allocated to feudal vassals of the king, many of whom had joined the conquest with this reward in mind. Serious wrongs were regarded mainly as public crimes rather than as personal matters, and the perpetrators were punished by death and forfeiture of property. The requirement that, in cases of sudden death, the local community should identify the body as English (“presentment of Englishry”)—and, therefore, of little account—or face heavy fines reveals a state of unrest between the Norman conquerors and their English subjects. Government was centralized, a bureaucracy built up, and written records maintained. Controversy exists regarding the extent to which the efficient government of the Anglo-Norman realm was due to the legacy of Anglo-Saxon institutions or to the ruthlessness of the Norman invaders. Elements of the Anglo-Saxon system that survived were the jury, ordeals (trials by physical test or combat), the practice of outlawry (putting a person beyond the protection of the law), and writs (orders requiring a person to appear before a court; see below The development of a centralized judiciary). Important consolidation occurred during the reign of Henry II (1154–89). Royal officials roamed the country, inquiring about the administration of justice. Church and state were separate and had their own law and court systems. This led to centuries of rivalry over jurisdiction, especially since appeals from church courts, before the Reformation, could be taken to Rome.

The Normans spoke French and had developed a customary law in Normandy. They had no professional lawyers or judges; instead, literate clergymen acted as administrators. Some of the clergy were familiar with Roman law and the canon law of the Christian church, which was developed in the universities of the 12th century. Canon law was applied in the English church courts, but the revived Roman law was less influential in England than elsewhere, despite Norman dominance in government. This was due largely to the early sophistication of the Anglo-Norman system. Norman custom was not simply transplanted to England; upon its arrival, a new body of rules, based on local conditions, emerged.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,133
3,090
✟405,773.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Double post
 

Attachments

  • uploadfromtaptalk1466512819035.jpg
    uploadfromtaptalk1466512819035.jpg
    55.9 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Site Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟130,556.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Then why are you arguing against it?

I not arguing against it. Most countries have adopted it. I said it was the most successful system for the worlds conditions.
How effective it is in some countries is up for discussion.
Take gun control in america. Most Americans want something done about it but a minority with influence has been blocking it for years.
I haven't got the time or inclination to go all through your posts points. Most of it is ridiculous. I mean you don't have a clue whats happening in the world do you ?

Slavery Is Everywhere

There are tens of millions of people trapped in various forms of slavery throughout the world today. Researchers estimate that 21 to 36 million are enslaved worldwide, generating $150 billion each year in illicit profits for traffickers.
Labor Slavery. About 78 percent toil in forced labor slavery in industries where manual labor is needed—such as farming, ranching, logging, mining, fishing, and brick making—and in service industries working as dish washers, janitors, gardeners, and maids.
Sex Slavery. About 22 percent are trapped in forced prostitution sex slavery.
Child Slavery. About 26 percent of today’s slaves are children.Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth. The vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished.

HIV/AIDS. Global situation and trends: Since the beginning of the epidemic, almost 71 million people have been infected with the HIV virus and about 34 million people have died of HIV. Globally, 36.9 million [34.3–41.4 million] people were living with HIV at the end of 2014

Poverty

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening. The poorest 40 percent of the world's population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.Jul 20, 1998

Water problems affect half of humanity:

Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.

Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.

More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.

Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.

1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)

Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Anglo-Saxons, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (871), had developed a body of rules resembling those being used by the Germanic peoples of northern Europe. Local customs governed most matters, while the church played a large part in government. Crimes were treated as wrongs for which compensation was made to the victim.

The Norman Conquest did not bring an immediate end to Anglo-Saxon law, but a period of colonial rule by the mainly Norman conquerors produced change. Land was allocated to feudal vassals of the king, many of whom had joined the conquest with this reward in mind. Serious wrongs were regarded mainly as public crimes rather than as personal matters, and the perpetrators were punished by death and forfeiture of property. The requirement that, in cases of sudden death, the local community should identify the body as English (“presentment of Englishry”)—and, therefore, of little account—or face heavy fines reveals a state of unrest between the Norman conquerors and their English subjects. Government was centralized, a bureaucracy built up, and written records maintained. Controversy exists regarding the extent to which the efficient government of the Anglo-Norman realm was due to the legacy of Anglo-Saxon institutions or to the ruthlessness of the Norman invaders. Elements of the Anglo-Saxon system that survived were the jury, ordeals (trials by physical test or combat), the practice of outlawry (putting a person beyond the protection of the law), and writs (orders requiring a person to appear before a court; see below The development of a centralized judiciary). Important consolidation occurred during the reign of Henry II (1154–89). Royal officials roamed the country, inquiring about the administration of justice. Church and state were separate and had their own law and court systems. This led to centuries of rivalry over jurisdiction, especially since appeals from church courts, before the Reformation, could be taken to Rome.

The Normans spoke French and had developed a customary law in Normandy. They had no professional lawyers or judges; instead, literate clergymen acted as administrators. Some of the clergy were familiar with Roman law and the canon law of the Christian church, which was developed in the universities of the 12th century. Canon law was applied in the English church courts, but the revived Roman law was less influential in England than elsewhere, despite Norman dominance in government. This was due largely to the early sophistication of the Anglo-Norman system. Norman custom was not simply transplanted to England; upon its arrival, a new body of rules, based on local conditions, emerged.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law


I still don't see why you're bringing up the Holy Roman Empire? The Holy Roman Empire was Germanic in origin. The Normans were descendants of Danes and Norwegians who settled in Normandy, spoke French and had some aspects of French culture.

The Holy Roman Empire never included France, Normandy, Denmark, Norway or England. It has literally nothing at all to do with the Norman Conquest.

The Anglo-Saxons migrated to England in the 5th Century, long before the Holy Roman Empire was even established. The legal system they found when they got there was largely based upon that of the Roman Empire, which had withdrawn from Britain within the previous century. They didn't invade, they didn't conquer, there was no war fought. They simply migrated and eventually established a culturally dominant position over time.

In fact, it was the Norman Conquest that unseated the Anglo Saxon nobility centuries later.

So, again... I have no idea why you're bringing up the Holy Roman Empire. They had absolutely nothing to do with English Common Law.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I not arguing against it. Most countries have adopted it. I said it was the most successful system for the worlds conditions.
How effective it is in some countries is up for discussion.
Take gun control in america. Most Americans want something done about it but a minority with influence has been blocking it for years.
I haven't got the time or inclination to go all through your posts points. Most of it is ridiculous. I mean you don't have a clue whats happening in the world do you ?

Slavery Is Everywhere

There are tens of millions of people trapped in various forms of slavery throughout the world today. Researchers estimate that 21 to 36 million are enslaved worldwide, generating $150 billion each year in illicit profits for traffickers.
Labor Slavery. About 78 percent toil in forced labor slavery in industries where manual labor is needed—such as farming, ranching, logging, mining, fishing, and brick making—and in service industries working as dish washers, janitors, gardeners, and maids.
Sex Slavery. About 22 percent are trapped in forced prostitution sex slavery.
Child Slavery. About 26 percent of today’s slaves are children.Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth. The vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished.

HIV/AIDS. Global situation and trends: Since the beginning of the epidemic, almost 71 million people have been infected with the HIV virus and about 34 million people have died of HIV. Globally, 36.9 million [34.3–41.4 million] people were living with HIV at the end of 2014

Poverty

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening. The poorest 40 percent of the world's population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.Jul 20, 1998

Water problems affect half of humanity:

Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.

Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.

More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.

Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.

1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)

Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea

Considering there are bout 7 billion people in the world, I consider these numbers a big improvement on the old days.

I never said there isn't misery in the world.
I said that such misery used to be everywhere.
So clearly, the world is improving.

YOU grew up in a better world then your parents.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,133
3,090
✟405,773.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I still don't see why you're bringing up the Holy Roman Empire? The Holy Roman Empire was Germanic in origin. The Normans were descendants of Danes and Norwegians who settled in Normandy, spoke French and had some aspects of French culture.

The Holy Roman Empire never included France, Normandy, Denmark, Norway or England. It has literally nothing at all to do with the Norman Conquest.

The Anglo-Saxons migrated to England in the 5th Century, long before the Holy Roman Empire was even established. The legal system they found when they got there was largely based upon that of the Roman Empire, which had withdrawn from Britain within the previous century. They didn't invade, they didn't conquer, there was no war fought. They simply migrated and eventually established a culturally dominant position over time.

In fact, it was the Norman Conquest that unseated the Anglo Saxon nobility centuries later.

So, again... I have no idea why you're bringing up the Holy Roman Empire. They had absolutely nothing to do with English Common Law.
Here is the first paragraph again. I will highlight pertinent information.

The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Anglo-Saxons, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (871), had developed a body of rules resembling those being used by the Germanic peoples of northern Europe.

Aka....The Holy Roman Empire who followed "cannon law" that was based off of Christianity and the israelites.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Well I am in good company, our founding fathers believed that it was moral. On what basis do you not buy it? So you think it is better just to let them do nothing and rot in prison?

de: Some founding fathers believed slavery was moral too.
You haven't proven that it is actually immoral yet.

de: News flash: The founding fathers were not infallible, they had some bad ideas as well.
Yes, but most of their ideas were pretty good.

de: It's best to try to reform or rehabilitate prisoners, that way they can actually become valued members of society. The US penal system is vastly ineffective at that.

Having them work for a time as an indentured servant actually may help them accomplish that. And the US ought to adopt the biblical concept of restitution, some states have done so.


ed: No, they would have been cheaper for ancient Hebrews and Christians too, because they were commanded to provide them with quality food, shelter, and clothing.

de: I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here... Who does "they" refer to? Slaves, servants, or free people?

The first they refers to indentured servants. The second they refers to the Hebrew and Christian masters.


ed: Well you have your opinion, but in certain extreme circumstances I think it may be necessary especially in ancient times. I think it is unlikely to be necessary in modern times because of modern welfare systems.

de: I'd argue the only reason you try to justify that is because it's in your holy book, and you therefore have to try to make it sound moral. Take the religious baggage out of the equation, and you simply can not justify your argument morally.

There is no religious baggage in the equation, just the truthful communication of the Creator and King of the universe of how to handle many problems the best way. You cannot justify your argument that it is actually immoral other than that it makes you feel bad.


ed: As I demonstrated earlier the biblical form of slavery is not really what moderns think of as slavery it is more like indentured servitude. It is very different from 18th and 19th century American slavery.

de: How many times do I have to hear this line on this thread?

de: Question: When you buy a slave from the pagan nations around you, is that person an indentured servant, or is that person a permanent slave that you own as property, and can pass down to your heirs?

As I demonstrated from the bible that person is more like an indentured servant because they are selling themselves to the hebrews voluntarily and can become permanent if they choose to.

de: Stop tossing back to the tired old, intellectually dishonest standard apologetic. Focusing solely on the Hebrew slaves and ignoring the parts about the non-Hebrew slaves doesn't make those parts go away from your bible. Slavery for that group was every bit like the slavery we are familiar with.

No, read Exodus 22:21-24. This command would plainly be violated if non Hebrews were forced into slavery. This is actually not the standard apologetic but it is an old argument going back to Christian abolitionists, many apologists think the bible does condone chattel slavery, but they are wrong as I demonstrated.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Here is the first paragraph again. I will highlight pertinent information.

The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Anglo-Saxons, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (871), had developed a body of rules resembling those being used by the Germanic peoples of northern Europe.

Aka....The Holy Roman Empire who followed "cannon law" that was based off of Christianity and the israelites.

I'm sorry, however your description of history is just flat out wrong.

The Holy Roman Empire was a large collection of reasonably autonomous states. There wasn't a unifying legal system for most of it's existence, and certainly nowhere near the time period you are referring to. When they finally got one implemented, the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina in 1530, it was based on an earlier work called the Halsgerichtsordnung, which in turn was based on Roman Law.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You haven't proven that it is actually immoral yet.

Nor have you provided a reason as to why it should be considered moral

Yes, but most of their ideas were pretty good.

Irrelevant. And that can be more or less true depending on which founding father you are referring to.

Having them work for a time as an indentured servant actually may help them accomplish that. And the US ought to adopt the biblical concept of restitution, some states have done so.

When investigating what legal/correctional systems should serve as the model for a modern first world nation, the United States is virtually never cited. There is a reason for that, it's because the success rate of rehabilitating offenders is among the worst in the developed world. As such, I don't care if some states have enacted bad policies that others haven't, the point is it doesn't work.

The first they refers to indentured servants. The second they refers to the Hebrew and Christian masters.

In that case, you're going to have to back up your claim. Where was that commanded, and how did you reach your financial conclusions?

There is no religious baggage in the equation, just the truthful communication of the Creator and King of the universe of how to handle many problems the best way. You cannot justify your argument that it is actually immoral other than that it makes you feel bad

Any time you refer to what the creator and king of the universe wants, that's virtually guaranteed to include religious baggage.

I'm sorry to hear you believe slavery is a moral act in some circumstances.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,133
3,090
✟405,773.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry, however your description of history is just flat out wrong.

The Holy Roman Empire was a large collection of reasonably autonomous states. There wasn't a unifying legal system for most of it's existence, and certainly nowhere near the time period you are referring to. When they finally got one implemented, the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina in 1530, it was based on an earlier work called the Halsgerichtsordnung, which in turn was based on Roman Law.
That is not my description. It came from Britannica.com.
 
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Site Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟130,556.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No.... I mean the Romans.

Why would English common law descent from the Holy Roman Empire? English law was already established long before the Holy Roman Empire even existed, and the Holy Roman Empire never controlled England, and therefore had no direct impact on it's legal system.

Why would you even bring up the Holy Roman Empire? That's just flat out bizarre.



One of the major European legal systems, Roman law being the other, English law has spread to many other countries, including former English colonies such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

English law has an evolving history dating from the local customs of the Anglo-Saxons, traces of which survived until 1925. After the Norman Conquest they grew up, side by side with the Saxon shire courts, the feudal courts of the barons and the ecclesiastical (church) courts. From the king’s council developed the royal courts, presided over by professional judges, which gradually absorbed the jurisdictions (legal powers) of the baronial and ecclesiastical courts. By 1250 the royal judges had amalgamated the various local customs into the system of common law – that is, law common to the whole country. A second system known as equity developed in the Court of Chancery, in which the Lord Chancellor considered petitions.

In the 17th and 18th centuries common law absorbed the Law Merchant, the international code of mercantile customs. During the 19th century virtually the whole of English law was reformed by legislation; for example, the number of capital offences was greatly reduced.

Judicial Precedents
A unique feature of English law is the doctrine of judicial precedents, whereby the reported decisions of the courts form a binding source of law for future decisions. A judge is bound by decisions of courts of superior jurisdiction but not necessarily by those of inferior courts.

The law changes. It has evolved and is interpreted differently and some things are relevant today and some laws aren't. Just like the bible. ( you don't seem to be able to get your head round that)
Because of the unique judicial precedents this helps the law stay modern with new technologies with precedents.

Saxon shire courts, the feudal courts of the barons and the ecclesiastical (church) courts. All these courts influenced law to become common law later in history. Traces of Saxon law was dissolved by 1925 acts.

There was a period of history when holy Roman law influenced english law. That's why a lot of the terms in law are in latin.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ok I didn't pick that you were talking about OT.
What you were talking about goes on today to set up illegal immigrants in countries.

I can't agree with you that slavery is from God. I think it is a compromise. It's the best they knew for that time and culture.
Also the slavery laws are very complex in the Pentateuch's.

A war slave is treated different to someone born in Israel. They had the least rights
Like you said Indentured servitude happened for set a period of time and was different.
Woman and children are treated different as slaves in the law.
The only kind of "slavery" God condones is indentured servitude for non-POWs and non criminals. He does allow involuntary slavery for those two people. Non-Israelites that lived in Israel were required to be treated the same as Israelites. See Exodus 22:21-24.
 
Upvote 0